harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mikhail Fursov" <mike.fur...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib][general] How to test the performance of Harmony
Date Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:05:36 GMT
Did you use default ('client') harmony mode? It's about 10-20% slower then
-Xem:server one and tuned for fast application startup. I hope that someday
we will merge all our configs and have only 1 mode to work to avoid these
confusions.

On 1/25/07, Leo Li <liyilei1979@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, missing one thing.
> The numbers in the list are mseconds to run tests.:)
>
>
> On 1/25/07, Leo Li <liyilei1979@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, all:
> >      I have just ran the benchmark tests provided by the dacapo.
> Although
> > I just got the result from my machine with default heap size , it
> > really suprises me:  Harmony at least has similar performance output as
> RI.
> >
> > Environment: windows XP sp2
> > Result:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > RI
> >
> > Harmony
> >
> > *antrl*
> >
> > 12235
> >
> > 13000
> >
> > *bloat*
> >
> > 21890
> >
> > Failure: exception thrown out
> >
> > *chart*
> >
> > 20672
> >
> > 17672
> >
> > *eclipse*
> >
> > 98829
> >
> > 74610
> >
> > *fop*
> >
> > 4422
> >
> > 4578
> >
> > *hsqldb*
> >
> > Failure: Out of Memory
> >
> > 9250
> >
> > *jython*
> >
> > 17969
> >
> > Failure: maybe Harmony has different layout from RI
> >
> > *lusearch*
> >
> > 17140
> >
> > 13657
> >
> > *luindex*
> >
> > 28687
> >
> > 24797
> >
> > *pmd*
> >
> > 15129
> >
> > 12312
> >
> > *xalan*
> >
> > 28563
> >
> > Failure: with xalan version conflicts
> >
> > (The failures on Harmony might be due to configuration.)
> >
> > Further, I still have some problem:
> > 1. Are there performace test suites focused on io,net and nio, where I
> > suspect the space to improve exists.
> > 2. Is there performance tests that can provide profiling messages to
> help
> > to diagnose hotspot?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Leo
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/25/07, Leo Li <liyilei1979@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >  On 1/25/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 2007, at 11:00 PM, Robin Garner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [SNIP]
> > > >
> > > > > http://cs.anu.edu.au/people/Robin.Garner/dacapo/regression/ - My
> > > > > focus is on DaCapo correctness, the performance test isn't
> > > > > particularly rigorous.
> > > > >
> > > > > IMO for harmony tracking SPECjvm98, SPECjbb2005 and dacapo would
> be
> > > > > a good start.
> > > > >
> > > > > One thing you definitely should do in a dedicated Harmony
> > > > > performance test is test across a range of heap sizes.  In a small
> > > > > heap GC improvements and allocation efficiency are more important
> -
> > > > > in large heaps locality effects and code quality dominate.
> > > > >
> > > > > If possible, testing on a range of machines would be good too.
> > > >
> > > > I'm hoping that by just making this "plug-n-play" in our build-test
> > > > CI and reporting system, we'll be running in many places in no
> time...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  +1
> > >
> > > Add performance testing to auto build system will be a great help for
> us
> > > to monitor the effect of the modification in source code.
> > >
> > > geir
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Leo Li
> > > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Leo Li
> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Leo Li
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
>


-- 
Mikhail Fursov

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