Comments on: Duff’s Device and Scheduler Benchmarking

By: Phillip

Phillip — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:14:49 +0000

I just want to say thank you for taking the time & effort for put this web page together! Please visit my site too:

By: Cathy

Cathy — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:14:44 +0000

I really enjoyed this page. I will be linking and I will be trying to read and research all that there is to offer from this site! Please visit my homepage too:

By: Allen

Allen — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:14:42 +0000

This site is very nise and helpfull! Please visit my homepage too:

By: Shannon

Shannon — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:14:20 +0000

One of the best locations I’ve come across lately!!! Definately a permanent bookmark! Would you please also visit my site?

By: Azzurra

Azzurra — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 07:56:06 +0000

Buon luogo, congratulazioni, il mio amico!

By: /~colmmacc/ » Blog Archive » First results from the Niagara Benchmarking

Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:34:24 +0000

[...] In order to make sure that the real benchmarks are as efficient as they can be, we’ve repeated our usual procedure using dd to determine the most efficient buffer size. More details about that procedure can be found in my earlier mis-titled blog post on scheduler benchmarking. [...]

By: colmmacc

colmmacc — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:36:46 +0000

Man, my posts are getting too long. I’ve got the wrong dd, although dd can be implemented using a duff’s device, dd comes from “dataset definition”. I’ve been assuming it was the other way around for years. Stupid me!

By: jmason

jmason — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:26:22 +0000

hi Colm –

great post, and lots of fascinating data! But where does Duff’s Device come in?