> From: David Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Oleg Kobchenko wrote:
> >> From: bill lam
> >
> >> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Oleg Kobchenko wrote:
> >>> >From my experience (steps limit: toSlow - toError).
> >>>
> >>> Win XP 2GHz 3Gb 32bit 40 - 42
> >>> Vista 2GHz 3Gb 64bit 40 - 55
> >>> Linux VM 2GHz 1.5Gb 64bit 20 - ...
> >>> Mac OS X 2.4GHz 4Gb 32bit 60 - 80
> >>>
> >>> I concur that Linux was the slowest of all and
> >>> Mac was the fastest.
> >> IMO "Linux was the slowest" by such a large margin is
> >> counter-intuitive, is Linux VM stand-alone or VM ware?
> >
> > It is Linux in VMware Player under the Win XP. While it's been
> > given a generous 1.5Gb of RAM it started getting slow around
> > 20 steps much earlier than other systems.
> >
> > I'd be good to show a result from someone who has a
> > physical Linux installation.
>
> On a native Linux installation, using j64, these were my results:
>
> Linux64 2x2.2GHz 3Gb 64bit 60 - ran to completion
>
> It took 3 hours and 18 minutes to finish. It consumed all real memory after
> 30
> minutes and the system mouse response became seriously erratic after about
> 50-60
>
> minutes.
David, this is a very good test. It shows the potential capacity
of JDB approach. The slow-down is due to lack of free physical
memory and file swapping. We are pushing the envelope here, and
hopefully there is some room to optimize JDB. However, there are
no miracles: the size of the database plus a certain operational
space is required to fit into physical memory to make it
efficient, and actually to make any sense for fast efficient
in-memory database.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
