harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexey Petrenko" <alexey.a.petre...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [performance] a few early benchmarks
Date Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:49:54 GMT
23 Nov 2006 19:44:23 +0600, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com>:
> On the 0x22A day of Apache Harmony Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> > 2006/11/23, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>:
> > > 23 Nov 2006 16:34:22 +0600, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com>:
> > > > On the 0x22A day of Apache Harmony Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> > > > > 2006/11/23, Vladimir Strigun <vstrigun@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > On 23 Nov 2006 14:37:09 +0600, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > On the 0x22A day of Apache Harmony Vladimir Strigun wrote:
> > > > > > > > The numbers that I published was received on P4 under
Windows +
> > > > > > > > server.emconf +Harmony-1980. Unfortunately I haven't
run Dacapo under
> > > > > > > > x86_64, but I hope we could receive almost the same
range (10-20 %
> > > > > > > > slower that Sun) with the mentioned configuration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And Sun was running with "-server" too I guess? :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, of course.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe, it is time to track performance comparisons of *different
> > > > > > > platforms* in one place? That should help to avoid major
differences in
> > > > > > > our visions for harmony performance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, good idea. Should we define the configuration for all VM's
as well?
> > > > > > For instance, for Sun we could use parameters from spec site.
What do
> > > > > > you think about it?
> > > > > +1 for options from spec site.
> > > >
> > > > I am in love with it too. We could present results similar to how
> > > > spec.org does. Just a list of runs.
> > > > For each:
> > > > * revision number
> > > > * hardware/os summary (number of cores)
> > > > * link to full details
> > > +1
> > >
> > > > * more?
> > >
> > > score? :)
>
> oops :)
>
> > Scores are most visible things but we can not easily publish them for
> > all specs...
> not allowed -> won't publish. We have great free benchmarks (thanks to
> DaCapo guys!), they will give us a good picture.
But I think that we should keep these (spec) benchmarks in mind and
optimize Harmony for them.

SY, Alexey

> > For example: http://www.spec.org/jbb2005/docs/FAQ.html#Qpublish
> > == cut ===
> > Q15
> > How can I publish SPECjbb2005 results?
> >
> > A15
> > You need to get a SPECjbb2005 license in order to publish results.
> > For more information about submitting results, please contact SPEC.
> > == cut ===
> > Another link on SPECjbb2005:
> > http://www.spec.org/jbb2005/docs/RunRules.html#_Toc102806116
> > This question need more investigation.
> >
> > Anyway I think that we should define suite list first.
> >
> > SY, Alexey
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> Egor Pasko
>
>

Mime
View raw message