On Friday 03 April 2009 08:39:52 Ximin Luo wrote: > Daniel Cheng wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 6:30 AM, <nextgens at freenetproject.org> wrote: > >> Author: nextgens > >> Date: 2009-04-02 22:30:59 +0000 (Thu, 02 Apr 2009) > >> New Revision: 26391 > >> > >> Modified: > >> trunk/freenet/test/freenet/client/CodeTest.java > >> Log: > >> Add a benchmark to the junit test; launch it with -Dbenchmark=true > >> At the moment it produces weird results: > >> [junit] Getting ready for benchmarking > >> [junit] Native8Code[k=192,n=256] > >> [junit] PureCode[k=192,n=256] > >> [junit] Native code took 239ms whereas java's code took 76ms. > > > > under my profiling: > > > > 1) The assertEquals is take more then 25% of time. > > 2) Randomize the array is taking around 7% of time > > 3) lots of time are spend on new byte[] / new Buffer. > > > > after removing assertEquals and some byte array allocations: > > : Native code took 40ms whereas java's code took 2ms. > > : Native code took 3ms whereas java's code took 35ms. > > : Native code took 4ms whereas java's code took 2ms. > > : Native code took 29ms whereas java's code took 3ms. > > : Native code took 3ms whereas java's code took 2ms. > > > > These are more just random noises to me. > > > > FYP, I am using the freenet-ext.jar from freenetproject.org. > > > > Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_17-b04) > > Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_17-b04, mixed mode, sharing) > > > > Using the new libfec8.so give more or less the same result. > > If you can reproduce this using other java version / cpu / arch, > > maybe we should just drop the native library. > > _______________________________________________ > > Devl mailing list > > Devl at freenetproject.org > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > > I get similar results; this is with svn-compiled freenet.jar *and* freenet-ext.jar > > [junit] ------------- Standard Output --------------- > [junit] Getting ready for benchmarking > [junit] Native8Code[k=192,n=256] > [junit] PureCode[k=192,n=256] > [junit] Native code took 200ms whereas java's code took 43ms. > [junit] ------------- ---------------- --------------- > > infinity0 at xl269:~/data0/projects/freenet/trunk/freenet$ uname -a > Linux xl269 2.6.26-1-amd64 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 17:57:00 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > infinity0 at xl269:~/data0/projects/freenet/trunk/freenet$ java -version > java version "1.6.0_0" > OpenJDK Runtime Environment (IcedTea6 1.5pre) (6b14-1.5~pre1-5) > OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 14.0-b10, mixed mode) > > but for more accurate results we should write some longer tests, ie. ones which > take minutes, not milliseconds...
Unfortunately we do not have enough memory to play with to send large amounts of data to the codec at once... Also, is this a regression? Has anyone tested the 32-bit codecs? > > X -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090406/54cf8754/attachment.pgp>
