On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 09:16:18AM -0400, Will Cohen wrote: > Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote: > >On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 04:21:38PM -0400, Will Cohen wrote: > > > >># The actual benchmark being timed is below. > >>/usr/bin/time /bin/cat `pwd`/jarg422.txt 2>> $RESULTS_FILE > > > > > >You're profiling cat under gnome-terminal, not gnome-terminal + cat. > > > >Wouldn't be better to run instead: > >/usr/bin/time gnome-terminal -x cat $PWD/jarg422.txt > > You are correct that this also includes the time for the cat. I tried > that earlier there are comments on that in the procedure. I have no problem with cat being included in the calculated time. It shouldn't consume much. > The net result > with the suggested change on gnome-terminal is that you get the amount > of time it takes to fire off the command to the gnome-terminal server, > not the amount of time to complete the task. The /usr/bin/time will > finish long before the cat is actually done. Oh, yes, I forgot. I usually run gnome-terminal with the options --disable-factory --sm-disable. They should prevent the use of a gnome-terminal server, giving more meaningful results. > Doing something like that > on xterm you will get gnome-terminal + cat time. > > The goal of the benchmark was to make something that could provide some > indication about the amount of time required to push a lot of text to a > terminal window, exercise some of the gnome-terminal code, be reasonably > easy to run, and have some chance at being repeatable. That the > exeperiment includes time for cat is not that big an issue, so long the > amount of time for cat stays the same and cat times don't totally > dominate the time. If you have oprofile setup and run the benchmark with > "--profile" you can see that xterm dominates the cpu by a large margin, > about 75% of the samples. I wasn't sure about oprofile also recording other applications. Guess I should read a good documentation about it. Regards, Luciano Rocha
