Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of gcjhd-harmony-dev@m.gmane.org
 designates 80.91.229.2 as permitted sender)
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
From: Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [performance] a few early benchmarks
Date: 23 Nov 2006 14:37:09 +0600
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <uac2io8y2.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <455D47F9.60606@apache.org> <455DE94F.8030006@apache.org>
 <253b20230611210620l1e2751beob747ef17bdc0d3dd@mail.gmail.com>
 <456330A2.6020408@apache.org>
 <253b20230611220601m3ebcf899k226aa6d8e4404205@mail.gmail.com>
 <4564A48E.4030503@apache.org> <4564E748.6090405@pobox.com>
 <4564E94B.2070205@apache.org> <4564EA75.2050504@pobox.com>
 <4564ECB9.5020905@pobox.com>
 <e3b630230611230017m28ba9f99l3fbd544d3b1855a4@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>

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? :)
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.

* Melody
* marmonytest.org
* Robin's site
* wiki (just for the start, maybe)

> Thanks,
> Vladimir.
> 
> On 11/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> > I reviewed - looks like Robin is seeing DRLVM get an aggregate
> > performance of about 35% of whatever he's measuring against.
> >
> > geir
> >
> >
> > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > >>>> Sergey Kuksenko wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Lets do the simplest thing fist. :)
> > >>>>> We can do it. We only need to specify a set of workloads.
> > >>>> I've tried running dacapo with 10 warming stages and we are constantly
> > >>>> around 25% speed against the leading JVM (which is always sun5 or
> > >>>> sun6),
> > >>>> bea5 is around 80% and ibm5 is around 70%, I'll have more detailed
> > >>>> results shortly.
> > >>> I don't understand this at all.  It wasn't but a few weeks ago when
> > >>> someone was reporting decapo numbers that ranged from 90% of Sun5 to
> > >>> 110% of Sun5.
> > >>
> > >> on x86_64?
> > >
> > > That's true.  It was x86.
> > >
> > > But the numbers that Robin is reporting aren't great either, are they?
> > >
> > > geir
> > >
> > >>
> >
> 

-- 
Egor Pasko