Wenlong, I'm sorry. You wrote: > Results show RI is around 2x faster than Sun's 1.5.0_15.
What is RI? Thanks, Alexei On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Wenlong Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aleksey, > > I am trying your delayed recompilation patch, and will let you know the > result. > > As for interpreter vs. jet or client, I measured the VM creation time > of Harmony, and found interpreter takes the least time to create > Harmony VM, e.g., 94 ms, while jet takes 121 ms, and client takes 140 > ms (all these time are for Harmony). At the same time, I compared > Harmony with RI in client mode for JVM2008 startup benchmarks. Results > show RI is around 2x faster than Sun's 1.5.0_15. > > Any thought or comment? > > Thx, > Wenlong > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Aleksey Shipilev > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Harmony's way to "interpret bytecode" is to compile it with JET. Last >> time I measured JET overhead, it was relatively small, like 5% of >> overall execution time on Eclipse startup. On another hand, if you >> compare performance on JET-compiled code of Harmony (-Xem:jet) with >> performance of code interpreted by any RI, you will see JET rocks. My >> other measurements shows JET-compiled code is like 3x times faster >> than Sun's 1.5.0_10 interpretation ;) >> >> Have you any data supporting your proposal? >> >> Thanks, >> Aleksey. >> >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Wenlong Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Hello, all, >>> >>> Harmony now uses jet+jit in client mode, does anybody know why? Seems >>> RI uses interpreter + jit or jit only to compile target program. Does >>> anybody have done or plan to support the interpreter + jit in client >>> mode? I am asking this question because RI has good startup >>> performance, but Harmony has not good startup performance (one of the >>> problems is compilation overhead). >>> >>> Thx, >>> Wenlong >>> >> > -- С уважением, Алексей Федотов, Телеком Экспресс
