1. Eu 2.5 is very slow?
- Posted by Jonas <thomasj at la??bit.com> Feb 06, 2008
- 538 views
Hi I have compiled eu 3.2 with watcom 1.7 and her is som speed test. My modest computer AMD Sempron 2800 2GHz 2GB tags3.1 3.375 Sec trunk3.2 17.609 Sec Official release 3.1.1 3.5 Sec
atom x, y, t x = 1.0 y = 1.000001 t = time() ------------100000000 for i=1 to 100000000 do x = x * y end for t = time() - t ?t while get_key() = -1 do end while
~Jonas
2. Re: Eu 2.5 is very slow?
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at ?mail.c?m> Feb 06, 2008
- 522 views
- Last edited Feb 07, 2008
Jonas wrote: > > > Hi > I have compiled eu 3.2 with watcom 1.7 and her is som speed test. > > My modest computer AMD Sempron 2800 2GHz 2GB > > tags3.1 3.375 Sec > trunk3.2 17.609 Sec > Official release 3.1.1 3.5 Sec The reason seems to be the memory management. The default using the makefile is to just use the OS to manage memory. In this use case, it really, really slows down (because it's a really simple allocation that's easy to cache). There was a bug when compiling with MANAGED_MEM=1 (fixed in svn now) so you could try compiling that. It seems to run very similarly to previous releases. I'll have to test this on Linux, too. I've run other benchmarks, usually dealing with sequences, where performance was better using the OS to do all allocations. Matt
3. Re: Eu 2.5 is very slow?
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at g?ail.?om> Feb 06, 2008
- 543 views
- Last edited Feb 07, 2008
Matt Lewis wrote: > > Jonas wrote: > > > > > > Hi > > I have compiled eu 3.2 with watcom 1.7 and her is som speed test. > > > > My modest computer AMD Sempron 2800 2GHz 2GB > > > > tags3.1 3.375 Sec > > trunk3.2 17.609 Sec > > Official release 3.1.1 3.5 Sec > > I've run other benchmarks, usually dealing with sequences, where performance > was better using the OS to do all allocations. I changed your code slightly, to make it allocate lots of new doubles, rather than reusing, and 3.2 runs about 3x faster for me (I also cut a zero off of the reps, cause I'm impatient like that):
atom x, y, t sequence v constant LEN = 10000000 v = repeat( 1.0, LEN ) x = 1.0 y = 1.000001 t = time() for i=2 to LEN do v[i] = v[i-1] * y -- x = x * y end for t = time() - t ?t
So I guess the question is, which is a more common case? Both scenarios seem to be pathological for one method of memory management. Matt
4. Re: Eu 2.5 is very slow?
- Posted by Jonas <thomasj at la??bit.com> Feb 06, 2008
- 530 views
- Last edited Feb 07, 2008
Matt Lewis wrote: > > Matt Lewis wrote: > > > > Jonas wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > So I guess the question is, which is a more common case? Both scenarios > seem to be pathological for one method of memory management. > > Matt Your code ran slightly faster 3.14 and 3.2 Sec ~Jonas
5. Re: Eu 2.5 is very slow?
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at g?ail.co?> Feb 07, 2008
- 535 views
Jonas wrote: > > Matt Lewis wrote: > > > > Matt Lewis wrote: > > > > > > Jonas wrote: > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > So I guess the question is, which is a more common case? Both scenarios > > seem to be pathological for one method of memory management. > > > > Matt > > Your code ran slightly faster 3.14 and 3.2 Sec Interesting. I wonder what I did wrong. Testing on linux, I get similar results for your benchmark, and on my modified benchmark, 3.2 runs slightly faster than 3.0 (3.1 switched over to using straight malloc). Matt