harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexey Varlamov" <alexey.v.varla...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [performance] a few early benchmarks
Date Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:47:44 GMT
2006/11/24, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com>:
> 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.
For the *default* mode?

>
> 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