[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <497E0047.5080307@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:26:15 -0800
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com, chinang.ma@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sharad.c.tripathi@...el.com,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
harita.chilukuri@...el.com, douglas.w.styner@...el.com,
peter.xihong.wang@...el.com, hubert.nueckel@...el.com,
chris.mason@...cle.com, srostedt@...hat.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, andrew.vasquez@...gic.com,
anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com
Subject: Re: care and feeding of netperf (Re: Mainline kernel OLTP performance
update)
>>To get quick profiles, that form of aggregate netperf is OK - just the one
>>iteration with background processes using a moderatly long run time. However,
>>for result reporting, it is best to (ab)use the confidence intervals
>>functionality to try to avoid skew errors.
>
> Yes. My formal testing uses -i 50. I just wanted a quick testing. If I need
> finer-tuning or investigation, I would turn on more options.
Netperf will silently clip that to 30 as that is all the built-in tables know.
> Thanks again. I learned a lot.
Feel free to wander over to netperf-talk over at netperf.org if you want to talk
some more about the care and feeding of netperf.
happy benchmarking,
rick jones
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists