harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ivan Volosyuk" <ivan.volos...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [performance] a few early benchmarks
Date Fri, 01 Dec 2006 00:33:16 GMT
They need to benchmark computational part. Benchmarking with IO are
much more complex and not obvious to interpret.
BTW, IO implementation in classlib is highly inefficient, see HARMONY-2288.
--
Ivan

On 11/29/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sergey Kuksenko wrote:
> > On 11/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
>
> Re specjbb2005 :
>
> >>
> >> No I/O?  Concurrency?
> >
> >
> > No.
> >
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >>
> >> That means the clients are in the same VM.  No sockets or such?
> >
> >
> > You are right.
> > No sockets, the clients are in the same VM.
> >
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >>
> >> without I/O
> >
> >
> > yes.
> >
>
> Well, I guess they are modeling a very secure application server - no
> data in or out :)
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >>
> >> Do you have an idea of what %-age of workload processing in the test
> >> suite is XML?
> >>
> >
> > Below is SUN's (server) distribution on SPECjbb2005 shown using profiler.
> > Garbage collection impact was not included into the data.
> > Also the distribution below is shown accurately to methods inlining.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > impact
> >
> > spec.jbb.* classes
> >
> > 62.6%
> >
> > java.lang.* classes
> >
> > 9.2%
> >
> > java.math.* classes
> >
> > 6.8%
> >
> > XML  classes
> >
> > 6.7%
> >
> > VM
> >
> > 7.4%
> >
> > java.util.* classes
> >
> > 3.9%
> >
> > UNKNOWN
> >
> > 3.4%
> >
> >
>
>
> Thanks - that's interesting information.

Mime
View raw message