here are some points of reference showing real user sys times
these were manually sampled to pinpoint jumps in performance from 206 ksh
binaries from 2006-11-22 through 2013-09-10
ksh-2009-11-17 0m12.06s 0m11.82s 0m0.14s
ksh-2009-12-04 0m13.84s 0m13.58s 0m0.16s
ksh-2010-06-16 0m15.15s 0m14.92s 0m0.17s
ksh-2010-11-16 0m14.06s 0m13.82s 0m0.16s
ksh-2011-04-11 0m12.72s 0m12.44s 0m0.17s
ksh-2011-06-21 0m12.58s 0m12.35s 0m0.15s
ksh-2011-09-21 0m20.58s 0m20.27s 0m0.19s
ksh-2013-04-11 0m23.40s 0m23.15s 0m0.17s
ksh-2013-05-13 0m13.83s 0m13.61s 0m0.12s
ksh-2013-05-31 0m14.15s 0m13.93s 0m0.11s
ksh-2013-06-06 0m27.15s 0m26.87s 0m0.14s
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Lionel Cons <lionelcons1...@gmail.com>wrote:
> We've observing a *severe* performance regression between ksh
> 2010-03-05 and 2013-10-08 on Solaris 11, AMD64, LANG is en_US.UTF-8:
>
> # prepare
> $ timex seq 1400000 >xxx
>
> # run new ksh
> $ timex ~/bin/ksh -c 'function nanosort { typeset -A a ; integer k=0;
> while read i ; do key="$i$((k++))" ; a["$key"]="$i" ; done ; printf
> "%s\n" "${a[@]}"
> ; } ; print "${.sh.version}" ; nanosort <xxx >yyy'
> Version AIJMP 93v- 2013-10-08
>
> real 32.59
> user 32.19
> sys 0.30
>
> # run old ksh - much faster
> $ timex /bin/ksh -c 'function nanosort { typeset -A a ; integer k=0;
> while read i ; do key="$i$((k++))" ; a["$key"]="$i" ; done ; printf
> "%s\n" "${a[@]}" ; } ; print "${.sh.version}" ; nanosort <xxx >yyy'
> Version JM 93t+ 2010-03-05
>
> real 14.59
> user 13.92
> sys 0.56
>
> Can anyone explain this? IO-wise the new ksh is better but consumes
> much more CPU time, while the old ksh issues more IO requests but
> consumes only half as much CPU time.
>
> Lionel
> _______________________________________________
> ast-users mailing list
> ast-us...@lists.research.att.com
> http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users
>
_______________________________________________
ast-developers mailing list
ast-developers@lists.research.att.com
http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
