On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 05:46:53PM -0400, Eric Siegerman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 09:01:32AM -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 09:06:41AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Run Time (hrs:min) 5:42 > > > Dump Time (hrs:min) 19:34 19:34 0:00 > > > > [...] if there were no parallelism in the phases that [run time] would > > be approximately the sum of the three phases. But never > > shorter than any of the single phases like your "dump time"s > > each much longer that the total "run time"s. > > If I'm not mistaken, "dump time" gives the sum of the durations > of all the dumps. In other words, it's how long all the dumps > would have taken if they hadn't run in parallel. (More or less > -- if they hadn't run in parallel, they'd probably have taken a > different amount of time due to a different resource-usage > pattern.)
That would make sense for the data given. I had thought it was clock time from the end of the estimate and planning phase to the end of the dump phase. Thanks for the correction. -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road (609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
