At 09:55 PM 11/10/2003 -0500, Perrin Harkins wrote: >On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 21:31, Stas Bekman wrote: >> Thanks Perrin for this comparison numbers, but I think you didn't provide >> enough build information. Default build opts vary from release to release and >> from OS to OS, you really need to show the whole perl -V to make these numbers >> more useful. > >Well, I'm not trying to do an analysis of compiler optimizations here. >I built these the way I suspect almost everyone else does: all >defaults. The main point was to see if there has been a degradation in >performance since 5.6.1, since I have been hearing that a lot. The >results show clearly enough to me that there has not been, and they >agree with my previous benchmarks. They also show that if you don't >need threads, it is very easy to build a Perl that performs >significantly better than the one that comes with Red Hat 9, so it's >worth doing if you are thinking about deploying a mod_perl app on Red >Hat 9 and concerned about performance. > >> Though I think it's also compiled with ithreads, whereas all others are >> without, so it's not a fair comparison across different perl versions. > >That was actually the reason I included it: to get a sense of how much >ithreads hurt performance. As you say though, the other options might >be affecting it as well. > >- Perrin
Perrin, Thanks for the comparisons. This is exactly what I think the bulk of users need to see. Like me, there must be thousands of users who have no idea what the compiler options mean and thus are not going to touch a single one! After your benchmark I can now relax and be comfortable that the Perl I compiled (my very first ever build of Perl!) is suited for my task. John >-- >Reporting bugs: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/ >Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html -- Reporting bugs: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/ Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
