On Mon, 2007-25-06 at 13:08 -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> CPUID:
>
> vendor_id : GenuineIntel
> cpu family : 15
> model : 4
> model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz
>
> shows that it is a P4 Xeon, which sucks compared to:
>
> vendor_id : GenuineIntel
> cpu
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 12:59:54PM -0400, jamal wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-21-06 at 12:55 -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
>
> > You should qualify that as 'Old P4 Xeon', as the Core 2 Xeons are leagues
> > better.
>
> The Xeon hardware is not that old - about a year or so (and so is the
> opteron).
>
On Thu, 2007-21-06 at 12:55 -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> You should qualify that as 'Old P4 Xeon', as the Core 2 Xeons are leagues
> better.
The Xeon hardware is not that old - about a year or so (and so is the
opteron).
BTW, how could you tell this was old Xeon?
cheers,
jamal
-
To unsub
On Thu, 2007-21-06 at 20:45 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 11:54:17AM -0400, jamal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Evgeniy, did you sync on the batching case with the git tree?
>
> My tree contains following commits:
>
> Latest mainline commit: fa490cfd15d7ce0900097cc4e60
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 12:08:19PM -0400, jamal wrote:
> The results in the table for opteron and xeon are swapped when
> cutnpasting from a larger test result. So Opteron is the one with better
> results.
> In any case - off for the day over here.
You should qualify that as 'Old P4 Xeon', as the
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 11:54:17AM -0400, jamal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Evgeniy, did you sync on the batching case with the git tree?
My tree contains following commits:
Latest mainline commit: fa490cfd15d7ce0900097cc4e60cfd7a76381138
Latest batch commit: 9b8cc32088abfda8be7f394cfd5ee6ac694d
On Thu, 2007-21-06 at 11:54 -0400, jamal wrote:
> The summary is: Batching always is better, jiffies is always the better
> clock source (and who would have thunk,eh? Opteron kicks a Xeons ass).
The results in the table for opteron and xeon are swapped when
cutnpasting from a larger test result.
On Tue, 2007-19-06 at 15:28 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> Converting pktgen over to ktime_t might be a nice cleanup.
Would that really solve it? i.e doesnt it still tie to what the clock
source is?
I had a friend of mine (Robert, you know Jeremy) and results are
slightly different from what Evgin
