Hi Jacek, To answer your question, one has to see more benchmarks. The overal result 2:1 is a very good result in favour of the interpreter. However, note that when running with the interpreter, we call most of the time compiled functions. I believe this reflects quite well what could be a realistic data analysis scenario. Note also that stress 16 gives a very bad result for CINT. I added this test on purpose. This is an example with several nested loops for which the current CINT cannot generate byte code. Probably, one day, you will see suddenly a tremendous speed-up in this last step. But, I repeat, send us the benchmark results only once we have released 2.21 next week. I still want to change a few things in these benchmark programs. Rene Brun Jacek M. Holeczek wrote: > > > Could you tell me also which I/O system your PII 450 has (SCSI, ultra-wide > > SCSI, UATA, disk rpms, etc). I've a dual PII 450 with UATA 7200rpm disk at > The "data" disk is a local HD 10GB UDMA ( I have forgotten the manufacturer ). > ROOT executables/libraries are on a NFS mounted disk ( via 10Mb ethernet ). > > home so I will make the comparison this evening. > Fine. > I' interested not only in the I/O performance, but ( mainly ) in Real/Cpu > Times of "stress" ( and of ".x benchmarks.C" ). > I mean, for example, is the 2:1 ratio between interpreted and compiled > "stress" very good, good, ok, bad, or very bad ? > If it's worse then yours I'd like to try different optimization flags. > ( BTW. maybe the one who reported a significant performance increase when > using "loop unrolling" did it on the rootdev list, not roottalk ? But I > can't find the archive of rootdev to search it. Any ideas ? ) > Jacek.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 00:43:30 MET