Thanks, Stefan.
BTW I really appreciate your taking the time to format the results into different comparison categories, with colour shades. Without that, given just a large table of raw numbers, I would not bother to spend enough time to interpret it. It is worth you, the writer, spending time on it so that we, the readers, don't have to.
- Julian
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Only in the "SSD cold" column [...]
>
> Well, I tried to express that with the "but cold caches" bit.
> Could probably use same punctuation there.
>
>> I'd be interested to see a re-run of the HDD tests with this build
>> (r1607306); do you plan to do that?
>
> Can't until late September. However, I should get a Windows
> box soon to conduct testing in less controlled environment.
>
>> For "load" what repository are you loading into (format? packed?)
>> and if packed, how/when is it being packed?
>
> Load is into f6 and f7, respectively as indicated in the tables
> (the dump files used are format independent). Repositories
> were left non-packed.
>
>> Could you attach the actual scripts you use?
>
> I simply hacked up a shell script and derived variations from
> it for the new runs. It requires superuser rights for the cache
> flushing bits and some paths have to be adjusted manually.
> Storage locations get symlinked to /files to unify access.
>
> Scripts are provided as are without further commentary etc.
>
>> In the later PDF file "load" is not mentioned in the summary of
>> tests at the top of the file.
>
> The load bit had been a late addition and I forgot to update the
> introduction page. Parameters are the same as for the first run.
> (It took 10h total to transform the raw logs into a spreadsheet -
> Formatting in LibreOffice turns out to be super buggy).
>
>> Do you plan to re-test r1607306 over HTTP?
>
> Not at the moment as the f6 / f7 relation seems to be the same
> for svn: as for http:. ra_serf results seem to be slightly less
> consistent / predictable than ra_svn, making it harder to tell
> whether a given test sequence got disturbed.
>
> -- Stefan^2.
Received on 2014-07-04 17:31:19 CEST