[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2 benchmarks
From: |
Camm Maguire |
Subject: |
Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2 benchmarks |
Date: |
21 Jun 2004 13:23:48 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
Greetings, and thanks as always, Mike!
"Mike Thomas" <address@hidden> writes:
> Hi Camm.
>
> I ran the Gabriel benchmarks patched per your original email (ie, not
> including changes which might have been applied after Paul's suggestions)
> and with the makefile modified to use Windows CLISP 2.30's "-x" argument
> rather than piping to a "-" command-line (which did not work).
>
> For Corman CL 2.5 I had to do each benchmark by hand as I couldn't get the
> ":quit" command to work with stdio from the makefile - in other words, the
> Corman results deserve to be taken with a substantial grain of salt as all
> output goes directly to the console rather than to a file.
>
> Needless to say there is no CMUCL/SBCL on Windows.
>
> I didn't see your test machine specifications, but my results (compared with
Dual Intel Xeon 2.4Ghz, 512Mb ram.
> CLISP) are broadly concordant with your's on Linux except for GCL
> input/output which is markedly worse on Windows - this could skew the times
> for tests with 1600 repeats or with small computation:I/O ratios.
>
Agreed. Please see my separate post on this. Shortly at
http:/people.debian.org/~camm/gabriel.tgz
I'll post the slightly modified suite I'm using. The i/o issue should
be somewhat mitigated as I've removed the (print (time ...)) around
each test. Beyond this, of course, it sure would be nice to rewrite
these tests to do fewer iterations on bigger problems, but I don't
have time for this.
The original results have been run without sgc. I will see what
effect this has. Of course if there is one, this will be a
performance difference with windows too.
> The GCL timer granularity on my machine is roughly +/- 0.02 seconds, so
> accumulating runtime benchmark results of that magnitude with Windows GCL
> may be inaccurate eg:
>
The test is not designed to accumulate these numbers, but rather
brackets the entire iteration with get-internal-run-time calls.
> >(time (sleep 0.025))
>
> real time : 0.033 secs
> run-gbc time : 0.033 secs
> child run time : 0.000 secs
> gbc time : 0.000 secs
> NIL
>
> >(time (sleep 0.025))
>
> real time : 0.017 secs
> run-gbc time : 0.017 secs
> child run time : 0.000 secs
> gbc time : 0.000 secs
> NIL
>
> >(time (sleep 0.3))
>
> real time : 0.317 secs
> run-gbc time : 0.317 secs
> child run time : 0.000 secs
> gbc time : 0.000 secs
> NIL
>
> >(time (sleep 0.3))
>
> real time : 0.300 secs
> run-gbc time : 0.300 secs
> child run time : 0.000 secs
> gbc time : 0.000 secs
> NIL
>
> Cheers
>
> Mike Thomas.
>
>
> Using a 2.4 GHz 512 Mb PI with Windows XP:
>
> ============================================================================
> Test GCL 2.62 (s) CLISP 2.30 (s) Corman 2.5 (s) (CLISP/GCL) (Corman/GCL)
> ===================================================+========================
> BOYER 7.450 107.703 15.861 | 14.5 2.1
> BROWSE 15.000 NA 134.724 | NA 9.0
> CTAK 4.250 12.047 9.124 | 2.8 2.1
> DDERIV 5.700 24.625 7.192 | 4.3 1.3
> DERIV 4.867 22.953 6.731 | 4.7 1.4
> DESTRU-MOD 5.683 72.656 19.394 | 12.8 3.4
> DESTRU 8.617 73.047 18.954 | 8.5 2.2
> DIV2 5.033 31.328 6.670 | 6.2 1.3
> FFT-MOD 0.650 139.047 NA | 213.9 NA
> FFT 0.983 138.781 196.118 | 141.2 199.5
> FPRINT 17.267 29.281 204.095 | 1.7 11.8
> FREAD 9.833 10.750 143.479 | 1.1 14.6
> FRPOLY 20.900 162.437 72.190 | 7.8 3.5
> PUZZLE-MOD 3.267 152.344 61.768 | 46.6 18.9
> PUZZLE 3.583 152.125 62.532 | 42.5 17.5
> STAK 6.817 68.203 NA | 10.0 NA
> TAK-MOD 2.667 85.625 4.654 | 32.1 1.7
> TAK 3.083 83.656 4.527 | 27.1 1.5
> TAKL 1.000 55.047 2.745 | 55.0 2.7
> TAKR 2.250 38.703 6.777 | 17.2 3.0
> TPRINT 13.033 32.578 528.728 | 2.5 40.6
> TRAVERSE 36.300 880.406 199.521 | 24.3 5.5
> TRIANG-MOD 48.900 2067.016 862.122 | 42.3 17.6
> TRIANG 52.283 1692.109 476.243 | 32.4 9.1
> ===================================================+========================
These are looking pretty good. They might be worth posting in the
release notes too after they've been given a thorough skeptical
working over, preferably by people who know clisp/windows and
corman/windows.
Anyone know why clisp is not compiling the browse test (and corman the
others?)
Take care,
>
>
>
>
--
Camm Maguire address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
- [Gcl-devel] C library support [ was Re: BLAS and GCL ], (continued)
- [Gcl-devel] C library support [ was Re: BLAS and GCL ], Camm Maguire, 2004/06/08
- Re: [Gcl-devel] C library support [ was Re: BLAS and GCL ], Michael Koehne, 2004/06/08
- Re: [Gcl-devel] C library support [ was Re: BLAS and GCL ], Eric Merritt, 2004/06/08
- Re: [Gcl-devel] C library support [ was Re: BLAS and GCL ], Dennis Decker Jensen, 2004/06/08
- [Gcl-devel] Re: C library support [ was Re: BLAS and GCL ], Paul F. Dietz, 2004/06/08
- [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2 benchmarks, Camm Maguire, 2004/06/14
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2 benchmarks, Camm Maguire, 2004/06/14
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2 benchmarks, Paul F. Dietz, 2004/06/14
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2 benchmarks, Camm Maguire, 2004/06/17
- RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2 benchmarks, Mike Thomas, 2004/06/21
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2 benchmarks,
Camm Maguire <=
- RE: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2 benchmarks, Mike Thomas, 2004/06/21
- Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.2 benchmarks, Camm Maguire, 2004/06/22