[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Results: 2.2.0-pre5 vs arcavm10 vs arcavm9 vs arcavm7
- To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@e-mind.com>
- Subject: Results: 2.2.0-pre5 vs arcavm10 vs arcavm9 vs arcavm7
- From: Steve Bergman <steve@netplus.net>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 21:32:26 -0600
- CC: brent verner <damonbrent@earthlink.net>, "Garst R. Reese" <reese@isn.net>, Kalle Andersson <kalle.andersson@mbox303.swipnet.se>, Zlatko Calusic <Zlatko.Calusic@CARNet.hr>, Ben McCann <bmccann@indusriver.com>, bredelin@ucsd.edu, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>
- References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990107001448.1242B-100000@laser.bogus>
- Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I've put out a new arca-vm-10 with at least this bug fixed.
>
> ftp://e-mind.com/pub/linux/kernel-patches/2.2.0-pre4-arca-VM-10
>
Here are my latest numbers. This is timing a complete kernel compile (make
clean;make depend;make;make modules;make modules_install) in 16MB memory with
netscape, kde, and various daemons running. I unknowningly had two more daemons
running in the background this time than last so the numbers can't be compared
directly with my last test (Which I think I only sent to Andrea). But all of
these numbers are consistent with *each other*.
kernel Time Maj pf Min pf Swaps
---------- ----- ------ ------ -----
2.2.0-pre5 18:19 522333 493803 27984
arcavm10 19:57 556299 494163 12035
arcavm9 19:55 553783 494444 12077
arcavm7 18:39 538520 493287 11526
Pre5 looks good.
Arcavm7 still looks better than arcavm10.
-Steve
--
This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with
the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org