harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pavel Ozhdikhin" <pavel.ozhdik...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [performance] a few early benchmarks
Date Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:44:57 GMT
+1
I'm even impressed how good is Harmony performance shown in debug mode! :)

Also, by default DRLVM is tuned for client workloads - fast startup and
reasonable performance.
If you run "heavy" benchmarks it worth to use "-Xem:server" or
"-Xem:server_static" mode to determine the potential of DRLVM.

thanks,
Pavel


On 11/17/06, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Stefano,
>
> It is a bit unfair to compare *debug* build of Harmony with other
> release versions :)
> I suppose all VMs where run in default mode (i.e. no special cmd-line
> switches)?
>
> 2006/11/17, Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org>:
> > There are lies, damn lies and benchmarks.... which don't really tell you
> > if an implementation of a program is *faster* but at least it tells you
> > where you're at.
> >
> > So, as Geir managed to get the DSO linking problem go away in DRLVM, I
> > was able to start running some benchmarks.
> >
> > The machine is the following:
> >
> > Linux harmony-em64t 2.6.15-27-amd64-generic #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat Sep 16
> > 01:50:50 UTC 2006 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> >
> > dual Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.20GHz
> > bogomips 6410.31 (per CPU)
> >
> > There is nothing else running on the machine (load is 0.04 at the time
> > of testing).
> >
> > The various virtual machines tested are:
> >
> > harmony
> > -------
> > Apache Harmony Launcher : (c) Copyright 1991, 2006 The Apache Software
> > Foundation or its licensors, as applicable.
> > java version "1.5.0"
> > pre-alpha : not complete or compatible
> > svn = r476006, (Nov 16 2006), Linux/em64t/gcc 4.0.3, debug build
> >
> > sun5
> > ---
> > java version "1.5.0_09"
> > Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_09-b03)
> > Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 1.5.0_09-b03, mixed mode)
> >
> > sun6
> > ----
> > java version "1.6.0-rc"
> > Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0-rc-b104)
> > Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 1.6.0-rc-b104, mixed mode)
> >
> > ibm
> > ---
> > java version "1.5.0"
> > Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build
> > pxa64dev-20061002a (SR3) )
> > IBM J9 VM (build 2.3, J2RE 1.5.0 IBM J9 2.3 Linux amd64-64
> > j9vmxa6423-20061001 (JIT enabled)
> > J9VM - 20060915_08260_LHdSMr
> > JIT  - 20060908_1811_r8
> > GC   - 20060906_AA)
> > JCL  - 20061002
> >
> > bea
> > ---
> > java version "1.5.0_06"
> > Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_06-b05)
> > BEA JRockit(R) (build
> > R26.4.0-63-63688-1.5.0_06-20060626-2259-linux-x86_64, )
> >
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Test #1: java scimark2 (http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/)
> >
> > command: java jnt.scimark2.commandline
> >
> > NOTE: bigger number is better
> >
> > Sun6
> > Composite Score: 364.5832265230057
> > FFT (1024): 220.8458713892794
> > SOR (100x100):   696.1542342357722
> > Monte Carlo : 149.37978088875656
> > Sparse matmult (N=1000, nz=5000): 326.37451873283845
> > LU (100x100): 430.1617273683819
> >
> > BEA
> > Composite Score: 359.13480378697835
> > FFT (1024): 303.8746880751562
> > SOR (100x100):   454.25628897202307
> > Monte Carlo : 93.23913192138497
> > Sparse matmult (N=1000, nz=5000): 530.44112637391
> > LU (100x100): 413.8627835924175
> >
> > Sun5
> > Composite Score: 332.84987587548574
> > FFT (1024): 216.5144595799027
> > SOR (100x100):   689.429322146947
> > Monte Carlo : 25.791262124978065
> > Sparse matmult (N=1000, nz=5000): 317.5193965699373
> > LU (100x100): 414.99493895566377
> >
> > IBM
> > Composite Score: 259.8249218693683
> > FFT (1024): 296.8415012789055
> > SOR (100x100):   428.974881649179
> > Monte Carlo : 89.15159857584082
> > Sparse matmult (N=1000, nz=5000): 144.3524241203982
> > LU (100x100): 339.8042037225181
> >
> > Harmony
> > Composite Score: 113.65082278962575
> > FFT (1024): 203.76641991778123
> > SOR (100x100):   224.37761309236748
> > Monte Carlo : 9.063866256533116
> > Sparse matmult (N=1000, nz=5000): 65.4051866327227
> > LU (100x100): 65.6410280487242
> >
> > In this test harmony is clearly lagging behind... at about 30%
> > performance of the best JVM, it's a little crappy. Please note how FFT's
> > performance is not so bad awhile monte carlo is pretty bad compared to
> > BEA or IBM.
> >
> > Overall, it seems like there is some serious work to do here to catch
> up.
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Test 2: Dhrystones (http://www.c-creators.co.jp/okayan/DhrystoneApplet/)
> >
> > command: java dhry 100000000
> >
> > NOTE: bigger is better
> >
> > NB: I modified the code to accept the count at input from the command
> line!
> >
> > sun6:     8552856 dhrystones/sec
> > sun5:     6605892
> > bea:      5678914
> > harmony:   669734
> > ibm:       501562
> >
> > The performance here is horrific but what's surprising is that J9 is
> > even worse. No idea what's going on but it seems like something is not
> > working as it should (in both harmony and J9)
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Test 3: Sieve (part of http://www.sax.de/~adlibit/tya18.tgz)
> >
> > command: java Sieve 30
> >
> > NB: I modified the test to run for a configurable amount of seconds.
> >
> > sun6     8545 sieves/sec
> > sun5     8364
> > bea      6174
> > harmony  1836
> > ibm       225
> >
> > IBM J9 clearly has something wrong on x86_64 but harmony is clearly
> > lagging behind.
> >
> > Stay tuned for more tests.
> >
> > --
> > Stefano.
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message