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.