I don't think anyone disagrees that measuring latency is a bad idea.
Note Brendan's comments in http://osnews.com/permalink?296801
http://osnews.com/permalink?296801
Encouraging customers to look at latencies for performance analysis is
really important.
...
If this tool does get customers to
On Jan 19, 2008 9:04 AM, Colin Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well I see that Brendan did reply to the OSNews link to this. He basically
shot them down at hardcoding the instrumentation - as he should have! :-)
Shame on Intel - they should know better!
Colin
I'm not a member of the linux
G'Day Folks,
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 04:52:58PM -0500, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 04:33:17PM -0500, Colin Burgess wrote:
I see Intel has released a new tool. Oh, it requires some patches to
the kernel to record
latency times. Good thing people don't mind patching
Well I see that Brendan did reply to the OSNews link to this. He basically
shot them down at hardcoding the instrumentation - as he should have! :-)
Shame on Intel - they should know better!
Colin
Bryan Cantrill wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 04:33:17PM -0500, Colin Burgess wrote:
I see
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 16:33 -0500, Colin Burgess wrote:
I see Intel has released a new tool. Oh, it requires some patches to
the kernel to record
latency times. Good thing people don't mind patching their kernels, eh?
So who can write the equivalent latencytop.d the fastest? ;-)
LOL - you rock, Brendan.
You know, at the VERY least they could have used systemtap, I guess.
Colin
Brendan Gregg - Sun Microsystems wrote:
G'Day Folks,
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 04:52:58PM -0500, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 04:33:17PM -0500, Colin Burgess wrote:
I
