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 12:10:46 GMT
2006/11/24, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com>:
> 2006/11/24, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com>:
> > 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?
> No. For server mode.
Agree then, of course. I wonder most benchmarks will hardly conflict
(significantly at least) on JIT optimization paths, so the more of
them the better... Though GC requirements most probably is different
story.
BTW, pardon my silly question, what is the core difference between
server and server_static configs?
>
> SY, Alexey
>

Mime
View raw message