or for a bit of FUN and Real UI responsiveness you could just boot a livecd of AROS
Originally Posted by V!NCENT
"This explains that you have absolutely no clue what "load" means It's not an absolute quantity like RAM or hard disk space"
actually it IS an absolute quantity, no matter what OS etc you advocate, right down at the core,you have a fixed amount of micro ticks in which to perform a given task, you can not perform more than this total load in a given time slice.
this is exactly where your scheduling for load comes in to it, you divide these limited ticks of time to move different parts of the sequentially run code to give the appearance of multitasking and responsiveness nothing more, so it is a absolute quantity.
now If you want to put the case that many coders today are lazy and dont try and optimise every part of the system and core libs *glibc etc to get as close to this absolute quantity then fine, clearly many dont and so you get things like this patch...
Finally, with regard to glibc performance, even if we take into account that some common routines are optimised (like strlen(), memcpy(), memcmp() plus some more), most string functions are NOT optimised. Not only that, glibc only includes reference implementations that perform the operations one-byte-at-a-time! How's that for inefficient? We're not talking about dummy unused joke functions here like memfrob(), but really important string and memory functions that are used pretty much everywhere, like strcmp(), strncmp(), strncpy(), etc.
In times where power consumption has become so much important, I would think that the first thing to do to save power is optimise the software, and what better place to start than the core parts of an operating system? I can't speak for the kernel -though I'm sure it's very optimised actually- but having looked at the glibc code extensively the past years, I can say that it's grossly unoptimised, so much it hurts."
No thank you. I prefer being able to do stuff on my pc while some background process is eating a big piece of system resources. I don't care if that background process takes a little longer to complete, as long as I don't have to take a little longer to do stuff.
Originally Posted by RealNC
How about you finnish/swedish/norwegian-speaking guys start including subtitles in the posts so the rest of us know what you're talking about. Or do I have to start insulting everyone in portuguese?
No, it is not. The instructions executed by 100% load in one CPU does not mean 100% load on another. But 100MB HD space on one system is still 100MB on another.
Originally Posted by popper
Testing -j64 on a six-core doesn't mean you get the same results as -j64 on a Pentium 4. But you guys seem to think that this is indeed the case.
11-17-2010, 01:05 PM
your HD analogy makes no logical sense, of course its still an absolute quantity, no matter how many CPU's or Hard drives etc you want to talk about, they both have a absolute fixed amount they can process/store.
Originally Posted by RealNC
OC 100MB HD used space on one system is NOT 100MB on another or you would have 200MB, twice as many places used in their fixed absolute quantity because you now have 2 not one storing twice as much.
I say again, you cant get more than an absolute quantity out of a given CPU , add another one and you get twice the amount of work time for twice the micro ticks, you can add more or design new ones to do more ticks per time-slice but its still an absolute quantity just a bigger Number.
Tags for this Thread