Re: [securenfs-devel] Fixed timings in thread-test client

[Nathan Y. <na...@yo...>]

Ahhh - much cleaner - I was wondering about that still ;-) I did a bit
of looking, but you beat me too it.. there is also a clock_t and clock()
function that do the same thing (no more/less accurate) with clock
ticks, thereby allowing us to measure CPU time vs wall clock time, but i
think we are really only interested in wallclock.

Interesting to note, my speeds seem to show that the first clients
connected get slightly higher average transfers:


Forking 21 clients.
0.101624 sec/message, 9729.83 bytes/sec
0.107163 sec/message, 9226.97 bytes/sec
0.113180 sec/message, 8736.43 bytes/sec
0.112972 sec/message, 8752.53 bytes/sec
0.121449 sec/message, 8141.61 bytes/sec
0.123179 sec/message, 8027.26 bytes/sec
...
etc..  However, does 9729.83 bytes/sec = ~9.7K/sec?  I am not up to
speed on my K/k/B/b etc notation/math.  Is this a good speed?  it seems
respectable on a per message (less than a second) basis.. but overall?

I also get different sec/message rates depending on the # of clients.  ~
0.001 with < 10, 0.01 10-15, 0.1 15-20, but that makes sense, as each
must share bandwidth with the others.

Nate

Nate

On Sat, 2002-10-26 at 13:23, David Wolff wrote:
> 
> It turns out that I was using gettimeofday incorrectly.  I've
> fixed that and now the results look much more reasonable.  Take
> a look.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> I encourage correspondence using GnuPG/OpenPGP encryption.
> My public key:  http://www.cs.plu.edu/~dwolff/pgpkey.txt
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in
> Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be
> fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com
> _______________________________________________
> securenfs-devel mailing list
> sec...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/securenfs-devel
>