These results are very useful, and you are very welcome to post them. We all
need to see how things are shaping up in user experiences so that we can best
allocate our time.
Here's the "but": Christian and I are working on bugs and refactoring/renaming
this month and next. This means that we have to treat performance issues (both
the good and the bad) as a side activity for now. But ("but" squared) you can
tempt us all you want to work on performance, and sometimes you will succeed.
At some point, we'll have to take stock of performance issues and start
shooting them down. At that point, I hope you guys will have a juicy list of
performance pain points for us.
My big pain point right now is getting the package structure realigned with the
Public Review spec.
Best,
-- John
On Feb 23, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> Is it useful for me to continue posting these, or should I just keep
> them to myself for now? It's also possible to run many JRuby
> benchmarks from our repository's bench/ dir.
>
> I've been looking at a red/black tree impl and benchmark recently on
> JRuby. With stock JRuby settings, it performs around 30% better than
> Ruby 1.9, but about 2x slower than Rubinius. The overhead seems to be
> largely allocation-related; many objects are created, along with many
> Ruby instance variable tables (Object[]). A five-iteration run
> triggers a full GC 2-3 times for me.
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
