>> Second pass: >> [55.391] titles 0 10000 >> >> Third pass: >> [66.390] titles 0 10000 >> > With a 20% variance, we can see that the testing methodology and > environment is very rough. > > And, with Niek running a P4/2.8 getting > > [24.201] titles 0 10000 > > and Bill running a P4/3 getting an average of > > [60.114] titles 0 10000 > > There's an almost 2.5x difference in times running on hardware where > hardware specs alone would account roughly for only 10% difference. > > Hopefully nobody will look at these data points and attempt to draw > unwarranted conclusions.
Agreed. There are too many variables in the way machines are set up to readily compare output numbers. CPU and RAM are by no means the only variables here. OS, procs running, procs priority, intermediate network (if test prog is run over a network) etc. But bottom line still is that it takes that reported amount of time for the SlimServer to cough up the data requested (assuming the CLI uses comparable ways in getting the data). If Bill is getting 2.5 times worse performance in the same tests as I get, I would assume his setup performs about that factor worse than mine when serving a SqueezeBox. The proggy does nothing fancy (I'll post the source in a minute on my site), it just times the start and end of the CLI command. I have not been very inventive in the queries I posed in my sample input file. It could be that my example commands are somehow not representable for gauging performance. Someone with a better understanding of what actually are reasonable queries could maybe give a few. It's just a matter of editing the input file to test other CLI commands. Niek. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
