> On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > Sure, glad to. If the 2.5 numbers are much worse than 2.4, somthing
> > isn't working as well,
> Are you volunteering to identify that "something" for us ?
Hell no. I was simply commenting that there is some general qualitative
information available from those numbers, even if it is hard to quantify
them. Not working as well for a benchmark may indicate much better typical
performance, and as I understand dbench the io scheduler may improve that
significantly as well.
No, clearly there are other, probably a lot more representative numbers,
which show 2.5 is better. "Isn't working as well" for one thing doesn't
mean "in general," but might be of interest to the primary developers.
The fact that the curve doesn't end in a reload from backup tells me that
the IDE code is much better that it was ;-)
What time I have for diddling kernel code is spent on making network code
changes, and is all against 2.4 base.
-- bill davidsen <firstname.lastname@example.org> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/