The results I posted were from experiments with moses-cmd and not from my thread pool version of mosesserver, although the results were similar.
I looked the in the archives, and can find no explanation for the new cache approach (global to per-thread). What use case is improved with this approach? On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Hieu Hoang <[email protected]> wrote: > Is the performance ok with the command line version? Can you push your > thread pool changes to a new branch. > > I'll take a look at it when I get the chance > > > On 25 June 2014 16:25, Mike Ladwig <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm trying to move from the moses 1.x release to 2.x, but have >> encountered large performance issues. On my workstation (Scientific Linux >> 6.5), using the same spa-eng data to create two systems I get performance >> roughly 3x slower on release 2.1.1. >> >> I started by comparing moseserver between the 1.x and 2.x releases. >> After discovering the "single phrase cache per thread" issue, I rewrote >> mosesserver using a thread pool but only got a 10-20% improvement. >> >> Thinking I might not really have fixed mosesserver, I tried comparing >> unmodified moses-cmd speed between releases. The values are in words per >> minute for a 2000 line, 48k word file. >> >> 1T 4T 8T >> Rel 1: 4850 16492 19500 >> Rel 2: 1742 5324 6559 >> >> Any suggestions? >> >> Regards, >> mike. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moses-support mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support >> >> > > > -- > Hieu Hoang > Research Associate > University of Edinburgh > http://www.hoang.co.uk/hieu > >
_______________________________________________ Moses-support mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
