Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!mailrus!b-tech!zeeff
From: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Cnews performance?
Message-ID: <9486@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Date: 24 Jun 89 14:15:36 GMT
References: <9476@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> <1989Jun23.194724.2047@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Organization: Branch Technology Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 29

>>Here are some times for cnews vs. 2.11.14 to process a single 
>>compressed batch (~50K) ...
>
>This surprised us considerably.  In some ways it is not a fair test, since
>newsrun (if you run it once an hour as we suggest) will normally amortize
>setup and teardown overhead over a considerable number of batches, not just
>one.  

If you don't use rnews.immed, I agree.  I've subtracted off the times 
to run newsrun when there is nothing to be done (ie, the fixed per run 
overhead at the beginning of newsrun).  

So now I get:

cnews  real: 23.6  user: 1.9  sys: 5.5    

2.11   real: 12.1  user: 2.2  sys: 1.8

Still not the results I want to see (especially since cnews did much 
more disk i/o, more of a problem here than cpu).  I'll have to try the 
latest version to see what difference that makes.  


BTW, it seems to me that a numeric patch tracking mechanism would make it
easier to know what patches you need.

-- 
  Jon Zeeff			zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us
  Ann Arbor, MI			sharkey!b-tech!zeeff