This result looks pretty strange!

Wurgl (speak^Wcrunching for Special: Off-Topic)
Wurgl (speak^Wc...
Joined: 11 Feb 05
Posts: 321
Credit: 140550008
RAC: 0
Topic 189043

Please look at the 3rd machine in this Workunit. The machine took less than three hours and the result is still valid.

This one looks really odd to me!

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4332
Credit: 251670275
RAC: 35541

This result looks pretty strange!

I agree that this looks strange. We once had a client that resetted the CPU time every time an App was suspended, so the total CPU time claimed was just the time since the last resume. Also some emulators (VMWare, Wine) sometimes give very confusing results concerning the CPU time. In any case I'd rather suspect the claimed CPU time being wrong han the result.

BM

BM

Wurgl (speak^Wcrunching for Special: Off-Topic)
Wurgl (speak^Wc...
Joined: 11 Feb 05
Posts: 321
Credit: 140550008
RAC: 0

> I agree that this looks

Message 10953 in response to message 10952

> I agree that this looks strange. We once had a client that resetted the CPU
> time every time an App was suspended, so the total CPU time claimed was just
> the time since the last resume. Also some emulators (VMWare, Wine) sometimes
> give very confusing results concerning the CPU time. In any case I'd rather
> suspect the claimed CPU time being wrong han the result.

Yep! you are right, when you look at the sequence of reporting times, the error seems in the used time.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.