On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 05:46:53PM -0400, Eric Siegerman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 09:01:32AM -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 09:06:41AM +0100, jason.walton AT nomadsoft.co DOT 
> > uk wrote:
> > > Run Time (hrs:min)         5:42
> > > Dump Time (hrs:min)       19:34      19:34       0:00
> > 
> > [...] if there were no parallelism in the phases that [run time] would
> > be approximately the sum of the three phases.  But never
> > shorter than any of the single phases like your "dump time"s
> > each much longer that the total "run time"s.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, "dump time" gives the sum of the durations
> of all the dumps.  In other words, it's how long all the dumps
> would have taken if they hadn't run in parallel.  (More or less
> -- if they hadn't run in parallel, they'd probably have taken a
> different amount of time due to a different resource-usage
> pattern.)

That would make sense for the data given.

I had thought it was clock time from the end of the estimate and
planning phase to the end of the dump phase.  Thanks for the correction.

-- 
Jon H. LaBadie                  jon AT jgcomp DOT com
 JG Computing
 4455 Province Line Road        (609) 252-0159
 Princeton, NJ  08540-4322      (609) 683-7220 (fax)