Tushar Teredesai wrote: > On 6/17/05, Steve Crosby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> SBU's are a wild-ass guess. The methodology of calculating SBU's is fine, >>but the application of someone else's build time measurements bear only >>rough resemblance to my system - specifically because of architecture, >>disk, memory, CPU cache differences etc. Do we really need to care about >><10% variances in build times for the initial SBU, when you can get greater >>variance than that due to other variables in the system. >> >>(The point being, should we really care that much about how accurate the >>SBU is, given it's a finger in the air, rough-guide anyway....) >>
> +1. My thoughts exactly, though I doubt if I could have said it so > appropriately. Even though it is an estimate for users, we should have a precise methodology. Giving SBUs to four or five significnat digits is not appropriate, but giving our best approximation is. If you check the SBU site main page, http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs you will see in the numbers the standard deviation of the submitted values. In some cases, it is obvious that the values are wildly divergent. In other cases, they are pretty good. I recommend just establishing a policy and using it as specified. The details of the policy are not that important. Documenting and following the policy is important. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
