On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 12:55:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niels M�ller) writes:
>
> > Perhaps idling, waiting for disk i/o requests to complete?
>
> Do a big tar extraction on Linux and note that your tar process soaks
> up plenty of CPU time.
I tried it, but it doesn't seem to do so:
$ tar cf /tmp/x.tar /usr/src/linux
tar: Removing leading `/' from member names
real 0m45.803s
user 0m0.260s
sys 0m2.370s
It looks like there is less than 1% of cpu time used by tar. And about 3% of
cpu time spent in kernel code.
In some my simple benchmarking, I have found that hurd is 5-10 times slowest
than linux in fs access. For example using bonnie++, a benchmark born to
stress filesystems, shows that while linux have a slow cpu utilisation,
usually <5%, hurd is using always a lot of cpu.
And doing some tweaking in the ext2fs translator, I found that caching of
data is often inconsisten. I mean, rerunning the same test program that made
always the same file access, sometimes made disk access and sometimes not.
I always wondered why...
--
Saluti / Regards
Diego Roversi |
| diegor at tiscalinet.it
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
