From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161088AbWAHIAv (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2006 03:00:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161094AbWAHIAv (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2006 03:00:51 -0500 Received: from quechua.inka.de ([193.197.184.2]:22406 "EHLO mail.inka.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161088AbWAHIAv (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2006 03:00:51 -0500 Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:00:48 +0100 From: Bernd Eckenfels To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Grant Coady Subject: Re: Why is 2.4.32 four times faster than 2.6.14.6?? Message-ID: <20060108080048.GA32737@lina.inka.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 06:42:25PM +1100, Grant Coady wrote: > Excuse me? there is no 5 minutes wait time ;) sure there is, you see the real time is 6mins vs 1min. since user and system time are nearly the same, the delay is introduced by sleeping io. And if it is not the disk, it is the terminal, as proofen by the redirection. No the question is, if this is in the pty or tcp/networkstack code. Gruss Bernd -- (OO) -- Bernd_Eckenfels@Mörscher_Strasse_8.76185Karlsruhe.de -- ( .. ) ecki@{inka.de,linux.de,debian.org} http://www.eckes.org/ o--o 1024D/E383CD7E eckes@IRCNet v:+497211603874 f:+49721151516129 (O____O) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!