Never mind last posting .. it was messed up!
-Art
A.E. Snyder, Group EC \!c*p?/
SLAC Mail Stop #95 ((. .))
Box 4349 |
Stanford, Ca, USA, 94309 '\|/`
e-mail:snyder@slac.stanford.edu o
phone:650-926-2701 _
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~snyder BaBar
FAX:650-926-2657 Collaboration
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Rene Brun wrote:
> Art,
>
> I have run your script on your file
> - with CINT : Real time 0:00:04, CP time 4.280
> - with ACLIC/gcc : Real time 0:00:04, CP time 3.590
>
> As you can see, CINT is extremely fast and your factor 2 or 10!
> must be somewhere else. Is your file somewhere on a slow server?
>
> Rene Brun
>
> "Arthur E. Snyder" wrote:
> >
> > The factor of 10 is very odd. I'm just using standard root executables
> > at SLAC. I haven't recompiled it our anything, so I assume they are
> > optimized to the same level.
> >
> > I'll send you the file.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rene Brun" <Rene.Brun@cern.ch>
> > To: "Arthur E. Snyder" <snyder@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>
> > Cc: <roottalk@pcroot.cern.ch>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 5:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: CINT cpu speed?
> >
> > > Art,
> > >
> > > I do not understand this factor 10. Are you sure than you run
> > > with the same CINT optimisation level in both cases?
> > > Could you send me your file pion-1.612.tuples?
> > >
> > > Rene Brun
> > >
> > > "Arthur E. Snyder" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I find speed of C++ interpreter to be much slower in new versions of
> > root
> > > > than in old ones. Using the code attached below to read in an ASCII file
> > I
> > > > find a factor of 2 decrease in the speed of the macro between 3.02-07
> > > > and 2.23-12. Why is that? This not progress!
> > > >
> > > > Even stranger is that the original version of this code which used
> > "cout"
> > > > rather than "printf" to print out variable "count" is even slower. That
> > > > one ran 10x slower in 3.02-07 than 2.23-12 the 1st time it was executed,
> > > > but improved to only 2x slower when executed again. I'm not sure if this
> > > > really had anything to do with use of "cout <<" instead of printf,
> > since
> > > > other minor changes such as putting in a few statements to print cpu
> > time
> > > > used also produced improvement from 10x worse to only 2x worse.
> > > >
> > > > Anybody have any idea what's going on here?
> > > >
> > > > -Art Snyder, SLAC
> > > >
> > > > ASCII tuple reader:
> > > >
> > > > TNtuple* readASCII() {
> > > > ifstream fp("paw/pion-1.612.tuples");
> > > >
> > > > TNtuple* temp=new TNtuple("ntuple","ascii
> > > > data","evtno:npievt:status:idmom:eve:ideve:b:idb:xb:yb:zb:
> > > > xeve:yeve:zeve:pxpimc:pypimc:pzpimc:ptpimc:ppimc:thpimc:
> > > > phipimc:pxpirc:pypirc:pzpirc:ptpirc:ppirc:thpirc:phipirc:
> > > > xpirc:ypirc:zpirc:nsvtpi:ndchpi:lenpi:delth:delthalt:pxalt:
> > > > pyalt:pzalt:thalt:phialt:xalt:yalt:zalt:pxmom:pymom:pzmom:
> > > > ptmom:pmom:thmom:phimom:xmom:ymom:zmom:idpimom:idpigma");
> > > >
> > > > Float_t array[56];
> > > > Int_t loop=1;
> > > > Int_t count=0;
> > > >
> > > > while(loop) {
> > > > for(Int_t i=0; i<56; i++) {
> > > > fp >> array[i];
> > > > }
> > > > temp->Fill(array);
> > > > count++;
> > > > if(count>=16434) break;
> > > > if(count%1000==1) printf("count: %d \n",count);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > printf("total: %d \n ",count);
> > > > return temp;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > A.E. Snyder, Group EC \!c*p?/
> > > > SLAC Mail Stop #95 ((. .))
> > > > Box 4349 |
> > > > Stanford, Ca, USA, 94309 '\|/`
> > > > e-mail:snyder@slac.stanford.edu o
> > > > phone:650-926-2701 _
> > > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~snyder BaBar
> > > > FAX:650-926-2657 Collaboration
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:50:08 MET