Fine-grained locking for POSIX local sockets (UNIX domain
kris at obsecurity.org
Sun May 7 20:32:33 UTC 2006
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 11:27:22PM +0300, Sven Petai wrote:
> On Sunday 07 May 2006 22:16, you wrote:
> > On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 10:00:41PM +0300, Sven Petai wrote:
> > > The results in my mail were mean values over 2 runs,
> > > only once did I see really huge (more than 10%) differences between
> > > several subsequent runs with same settings, this case was clearly
> > > mentioned in the results.
> > FYI, 2 is not really enough, you should do at least 10 repetitions of
> > each test to reduce variance (which can be a lot, despite what you
> > saw!) and so that differences between them can be accurately
> > estimated. Ministat is really helpful for this.
> I'm well aware that 2 is not enough for quality measurements and
> I certainly would have liked to do more repetitions, but I was running against
> a clock - this machine might be shipped out to client any
> time and I wanted to test several combinations of OS [fbsd 6, fbsd current,
> current + watsons patch, linux] with different threading library and
> scheduler combinations at different thread counts and nice values.
> This creates nice combinatorial explosion.
FYI, ULE is probably not worth bothering about. It has too many
performance problems and no owner.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/attachments/20060507/b88ee453/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-performance