HP3000-L Archives

February 1999, Week 1

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Overman_James <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Overman_James <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 4 Feb 1999 20:18:08 GMT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
Steve Cooper ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
: Scott Ehret <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
: >Does anyone know a cost estimate for GLANCE on a 9x7 machine?
: Oh, somewhere between 15% and 23%.
: Steve

I must differ with Steve Cooper as to Glance Overhead and the Measurement
Interface.

On my systems, I have measured the elapsed and total CPU utilization
for various loads with and without Glance running.  I have never been
able to measure a significant difference overall (within the measurement
deviation - way less than 1%).

Certainly, Glance itself can use a lot of CPU when screens are cycled
frequently or alot of filtering is being done.  Also, the Measurement
Interface can use a significant share of CPU when some "do-nothing"
process is invoked (like a copy to $null).

I have not been able to test large multi-processor systems nor systems
with hundreds of users so as always "your milage may vary".
--
 [log in to unmask]   Roseville, CA

ATOM RSS1 RSS2