In article ,
Tycho Andersen wrote:
> While I agree there's a lot of things you can't control for, you can
> get a more accurate picture by using CPU time instead of wall time
> (e.g. the clock() system call). If what you care about is mostly CPU
> time [...]
That's a big if. In some cases, CPU
On Nov 17, 4:03 pm, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article ,
> Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
>
> > Yes, this is surely something that is necessary, in particular since
> > there are no clear success/failure outputs like for unit tests and they
> > require a human to interpret them.
>
> As much as possible, you
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 09:36:40AM -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <95bcp8-bft@satorlaser.homedns.org>,
> Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I'm currently trying to establish a few tests here that evaluate certain
> > performance characteristics of our systems. As part of this,
In article ,
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> Yes, this is surely something that is necessary, in particular since
> there are no clear success/failure outputs like for unit tests and they
> require a human to interpret them.
As much as possible, you want to automate things so no human
intervention
Am 16.11.2011 15:36, schrieb Roy Smith:
It's really, really, really hard to either control for, or accurately
measure, things like CPU or network load. There's so much stuff you
can't even begin to see. The state of your main memory cache. Disk
fragmentation. What I/O is happening directly ou
In article <95bcp8-bft@satorlaser.homedns.org>,
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm currently trying to establish a few tests here that evaluate certain
> performance characteristics of our systems. As part of this, I found
> that these tests are rather similar to unit-tests, only that t
