Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!mtune!rkh
From: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM (Robert Halloran)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Cnews performance?
Message-ID: <8017@mtune.ATT.COM>
Date: 23 Jun 89 13:41:35 GMT
References: <9476@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Reply-To: rkh@mtune.UUCP (Robert Halloran)
Organization: AT&T ISL Middletown NJ USA
Lines: 27

In article <9476@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes:
>Here are some times for cnews vs. 2.11.14 to process a single 
>compressed batch (~50K) (all the way from rnews to the spool 
>directory): 

>2.11.14: real:  12.1 user:  2.2 sys:   1.8 
>
>cnews: real:  28.1 user:  2.1 sys:   6.8
>
>This was a quick and dirty test - can anyone confirm these results?  

On a pair of 3b2/700's, one with 2.11 and the other with Cnews, on a
common feed from 'att', I ran the 'acctcom' routine through an awk script
to sum up processes and CPU time for 2.11 rnews vs. Cnews' relaynews, on the 
grounds that these were the routines actually unbatching news.  The results I got were:

For five hours (0445 - 0945) of 2.11:  591 rnews processes, 330.03 CPU-secs total

For 5.5 hours (0400 - 0930) of Cnews:  27 relaynews processes, 52.99 CPU-secs total.


						Bob Halloran
=========================================================================
UUCP: att!mtune!rkh				Internet: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM
USPS: 17 Lakeland Dr, Port Monmouth NJ 07758	DDD: 201-495-6621 eve ET
Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed.
Quote: "Will I dream?" - HAL, "2010"