At Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:02:22 +0100,
Attilio Rao wrote:
>
> pmcannotate is a tool that prints out sources of a tool (in C or
> assembly) with inlined profiling informations retrieved by a prior
> pmcstat analysis.
> If compared with things like callgraph generation, it prints out
> profiling on a p
2008/11/25 Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/11/25 Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> I believe most of the synthetic numbers (mp3 encoding etc.) difference
>>> comes from the different version of gcc the different OS uses...
>>
>> You're very likely right. Ubuntu 8.10 has gcc 4.3.x - it
A few things!
* Since you've changed two things - hwpmc _AND_ the kernel version -
you can't easily conclude which one (if any!) has any influence on
Giant showing up in your top output. I suggest recompiling without
hwpmc and seeing if the behaviour changes.
* The gprof utility expects something
2008/11/25 Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I believe most of the synthetic numbers (mp3 encoding etc.) difference
>> comes from the different version of gcc the different OS uses...
>
> You're very likely right. Ubuntu 8.10 has gcc 4.3.x - it could make for
> the small difference in gzip and 7z
Roman Divacky wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:08:27PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> Steven Hartland wrote:
>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=os_threeway_2008&num=1
>>>
>>> Was interesting until I saw this:-
>>>
>> The results seem well within expectations, for the sort of ben
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:08:27PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Steven Hartland wrote:
> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=os_threeway_2008&num=1
> >
> > Was interesting until I saw this:-
> >
>
> The results seem well within expectations, for the sort of benchmarks
> they did:
2% may not sound like a lot but it starts becoming measurable savings
when the number of boxes involved is ${LARGE}.
2c,
Adrian
2008/11/24 Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At 03:28 PM 11/24/2008, Steven Hartland wrote:
>>
>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=os_threeway_2008&
2008/11/25 Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At 12:06 PM 11/25/2008, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>
>> 2% may not sound like a lot but it starts becoming measurable savings
>> when the number of boxes involved is ${LARGE}.
>
> True, but then again is there such a thing as a synthetic benchmark that
> woul
At 12:06 PM 11/25/2008, Adrian Chadd wrote:
2% may not sound like a lot but it starts becoming measurable savings
when the number of boxes involved is ${LARGE}.
True, but then again is there such a thing as a synthetic benchmark
that would have a margin of error less than 2% while representing
Steven Hartland wrote:
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=os_threeway_2008&num=1
>
> Was interesting until I saw this:-
>
The results seem well within expectations, for the sort of benchmarks
they did: there is little difference between the systems. Depending on
the details of
Hello,
I did some calculations to take into account not only best
result, but how much it is better. I used following formulas:
If more is better then result/max(ubuntu, opensolaris,
freebsd)
If less is better then min(ubuntu, opensolaris, freebsd)/
result
Results in ph
11 matches
Mail list logo
