On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 12:10:44 +1000, James Mills <prologic@short circuit.net.auw rote:
Probably, yes, but I think this just means the OP used funny
language. Perhaps he will clarify, though.
Jean-Paul
>On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Jean-Paul Calderone <exarkun@divmod .comwrote:
>
>I realized this _after_ I posted my response.
>However:
>
>Doesn't 70Hz imply that you are asking for:
>
>How many cycles/events per second
>can I achieve ? Hz is often used to
>determine the running frequency of
>something, not throughput (how fast the
>pipe is).
>Indeed, this looks wrong - or at least inconclusive. The benchmark
>above demonstrates throughput, not minimum (or maximum, or average,
>or any other statistic) response latency, which is what the OP was
>really asking about.
>above demonstrates throughput, not minimum (or maximum, or average,
>or any other statistic) response latency, which is what the OP was
>really asking about.
>I realized this _after_ I posted my response.
>However:
>
>Doesn't 70Hz imply that you are asking for:
>
>How many cycles/events per second
>can I achieve ? Hz is often used to
>determine the running frequency of
>something, not throughput (how fast the
>pipe is).
language. Perhaps he will clarify, though.
Jean-Paul