06-04-2010, 08:44 AM
What triggered my post was "the first thing I would have looked at" part. As if you implied (my words): "I would have done it ten times better", to which I was like "but you didn't".
06-04-2010, 01:02 PM
ahh, i guess my point was, i look at top (not usually iotop) before running even a simple benchmark like hdparm, if i care about having decent results. I would expect a test suite designed for benchmarking a large number of systems in to check for an idle system prior to running tests.
Originally Posted by V!NCENT
The thing that rubbed me about this, is that if SOP here isn't to look at those sorts of things to ensure a consistent test setup prior to running benchmarks, then all benchmark results are going to be suspect IMHO.
06-04-2010, 01:20 PM
But is is a consistent setup. Getting a top measurement from before benchmarking is great if you're running a live desktop box, doing a comparison between disparate systems, etc. But that's not what this is. This is "Benchmark. Replace Kernel. Benchmark. Replace Kernel. Benchmark." If something is screwed up between benchmarks, it's due to the replacement kernel. Having a top number might give you more information about what part is causing the slowdown, but it doesn't remove the fact that there is a slowdown, which is all that the Phoromatic is designed to test. The fact it broke udev is secondary to the actual problem.
Originally Posted by cynyr
Again, Phoromatic is not a diagnosis tool, it is a benchmark. It is designed to tell you how fast, not why it is or isn't as fast as you're expecting.
06-05-2010, 10:07 AM
Yes, I agree that this is a bit large for such a minor thing.
Still within the merge window (or shortly after) then regressions like this are expected.
I wouldn't say stop warning us.. Back when I used an NVIDIA card, I used beta drivers and would appreciate the "heads-up" about a specific beta driver running slow.
I wouldn't expect so much hoopla over it though.
Maybe some simple graphs and enough testing to say "actually, yes, it is a problem with the drivers / software".
I say continue warning us - but just try to keep it to 1 page with a summary / enlarging summary pic showing some combined graphs.
06-05-2010, 11:06 AM
The actual reason for Michael's post
Michael seems to be RedHat's dog, Rover.
The RedHat developers, and in particular, Dave Airlie have come under intense scrutiny and criticism by core kernel developers, for their inept and ultimately damaging stupidity.
Michael, who is partly funded by RedHat, appears to have been asked to redress the balance, as it were. And the net result is a damaging hit-piece that comes straight off the front page of the News Of The World or National Enquirer.
But this is not the first time Michael has not been impartial, by any means. And it certainly won't be the last.
Hey Michael - Fetch that stick ! Good doggy !
06-05-2010, 11:10 AM
How about we keep the personal attacks away?
06-05-2010, 11:14 AM
06-05-2010, 11:34 AM
and you have any evidence for your claims? Starting with Airlie being intensely critized to Redhats involvement? I am sure whoever does Phoronix accounting would be delighted.
Originally Posted by gordboy
06-05-2010, 11:42 AM
06-05-2010, 11:53 AM
Oh snap, our good friend gordboy is back
Whenever he posts the lulz follows.
Right now who gives a snap as the problem's been resolved. In the future I am sure Michael will give more detailed information about a problem that Phoromatic detects so that kernel devs will take a look at it.
I do think that michael should provide a meaningful bug report when an issue is detected and where the problem lies rather than blaring it out. The kernel devs are a hard working bunch that don't need to be screamed at like kids.
Tags for this Thread