Re: Missing messages
Robert Craig wrote:
> Chris Bensler set it up.
> It was free.
> It was better than Yahoo or MSN groups.
> We needed a moderated group since someone was causing
> problems and we had no way to control what he posted or
> how often. We had kind of overstayed our welcome on
> a university server that we had little control over,
> and which had no decent moderation facility.
> Lately Topica has deteriorated a bit more.
> I recommend that people consider RSS or simply
> use the RDS web interface.
I see. I only use the web interface and RSS, so I'm saved from their mail server
reliability issues.
> Yes, I figured it out.
> 2.5 ex.exe is actually faster than 1.2 ex.exe by about 20% when
> doing sequence operations. Where 1.2 is winning big-time is
> on the time() function. Each of these benchmarks
> calls time() each time around the loop. 1.2 uses the old
> DOS4GW DOS extender that I think had a special optimization
> for time(). Anyway it's about 70x faster than the time()
> in 2.5. time() does a DOS interrupt, something that's often quite
> expensive with a DOS extender.
Does this affect time profiling with DOS Euphoria too, or is there no
connection? What about with the cooperative tasking in DOS, after re-scheduling
from a paused state?
> Note: With exw, time() is extremely fast.
> Much faster even than ex version 1.2.
Yea I noticed it's alot fast, but what about Linux and FreeBSD?
When I tested it with v2.5 'exw.exe', the results where alot better, but v1.2
'ex.exe' oddly still won overall:
v1.2 performed 180,461 more initializations per second than v2.5 (lost)
v1.2 performed 170,586 more sequence-adds per second than v2.5 (lost)
v1.2 performed 5,062,951 more appends per second than v2.5 (lost)
v2.5 performed 2,859,499 more slices per second than v1.2 (won) ???
v2.5 performed 64,637 more look-ups per second than v1.2 (won)
Perhaps there is more to this than just the speed of time()?
> I checked 2.5, 2.4, 2.1, 1.4, 1.3 and 1.2.
> The change comes between 1.3 and 1.4.
> That's when I switched to the CauseWay DOS extender.
> 2.5 comes out a bit faster than all the other releases
> after 1.3 on this benchmark. I think the benchmark is
> a bit flawed because it inadvertantly places a lot of
> importance on the time() function.
The sieve benchmark uses time() too. Eu v1.2 'ex.exe' performs 813 more sieves a
second than v2.5 'ex.exe'. However v2.5 'exw.exe' performs 107 more sieves a
second than v1.2 'ex.exe'. Without time(), v2.5 'ex.exe' probably performs better
than v1.2 'ex.exe'; we just couldn't see the results that way.
> Fortunately, when a program calls time(),
> it's usually not in a time-critical section.
> Often it's just waiting for the clock to advance,
> or it's timing some operation.
Is there anyway you could make the DOS time() routine faster? Possibly by
re-writing it in ASM? If that could be done, I think 70x slower is enough to
warrant a new implementation for DOS! By re-writing it, you could also remove
that nasty 24 hour reset limit? One thing is for sure, you wouldn't have any
trouble implementing it; there are several Euphorians' with x86 ASM coding
experience, certainly enough to help you write a new DOS time().
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
Regards,
Vincent
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
