HecHacker1 wrote:genetics = more throughput over a longer period of time (tens of seconds); on some tests genetics is the fastest, and others the slowest... since it has to relearn the i/o pattern each time you are never guaranteed a certain latency or throughput. I would argue its best usage is for a predictable server pattern, or long file transfer.
so throughput is the only thing that matters to you?
actually, the genetic libs are very VERY customizable, right now I think all process experience the same genes, however the kernel now supports grouping of processes in many different ways so we might be able to assing a particular pid or group a set of genes or phenotypes, or give them different mutation rates, etc.
in other words, the genetic libs are implemented one of a million possible ways, the genetic libs are only limited to our imaginaion and programming skills
now if you think about it for a second, what do you actually do in real life on your computer that lasts shorter than a few seconds, every game you play im sure you are playing for a minute or longer, everytime you emerge --sync, everytime you emerge world....... emerging is by far the most cpu + disk intensive with gaming close behind and both of these usually last for minutes or longer, show me a real life task or multitasking situation where genetics doesnt kick ass!
if you can show situations were genetics sucks then maybe we can tweak things for the good.... benchmarks are highly missused, they are like laboratory experiments, how much real world validity do they have, and I NEVER sceen anyone average multiple trials together or use any sort of statistic
I am not trying to dismiss anyone's claims specifically, I just want people provide enough details so others can reproduce things..... try to make things more scientific
has anyone ever noticed how mingo and ck released "stressor" apps to test their scheduler changes so that everyone knew exactly what they were trying to do.