On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 21 Jun 2016, at 11:58, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Clément Bera <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello John. > >> > >> I'm just guessing here. Lacking information. It could be: > >> > >> Guess 3) the UI is known to be much slower in Pharo. Can you try > headless or > >> after ticking "Server mode" In the Pharo settings in System. > > > > Or try something like... > > [ Transcript cr; show: (Time millisecondsToRun: [1 to: 100000000 do: > > [:i | Object new]] ) ] forkAt: 75. > > BTW, this is essentially a garbage collection benchmark: you create > 100,000,000 empty objects. It stresses the GC, especially the ephemeral > phase of it. Since the GC is part of the VM, you are testing the VM more > than any image code. > Right, it could be related to the new finalization ... We can't guess properly we have no VM versions. > > > cheers -ben > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 1:28 AM, John Brant <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> I have some code that creates a several hundred MB model. When I run > the > >>> code under Pharo it takes ~2.5 minutes to run. However, if I run the > same > >>> code in Squeak, it takes ~2 minutes. Since my code just uses base > >>> collections and streams, I thought the times should be very similar > between > >>> the two. After a little investigation, I noticed that even simple > things > >>> like “Object new” can take much more time in Pharo. Here’s an example > that I > >>> executed in Squeak and Pharo: > >>> > >>> Time millisecondsToRun: [1 to: 100000000 do: [:i | Object new]] > >>> > >>> Squeak times: > >>> 1255 1257 1261 1265 1280 1294 1314 1337 1350 1360 > >>> > >>> Pharo times: > >>> 1815 1818 1870 1879 1900 1922 1944 1952 1958 2170 > >>> > >>> The results are the first 10 executions sorted by time after opening an > >>> image. Pharo doesn’t always give these poor results. Occasionally I > can get > >>> times as good a Squeak. For example, I was able to get these times in > Pharo: > >>> 1253, 1284, 1297, 1314, 1317. However, it generally takes ~1.8 seconds > in > >>> Pharo vs. the ~1.3 seconds for Squeak. The worst time I got for Squeak > was > >>> in the 1.6 second range. The worst for Pharo was in the 4.3 second > range. > >>> > >>> Does anyone know why Pharo is slower? Is there some memory setting > that I > >>> need to change? > >>> > >>> > >>> John Brant > >> > >> > > > > >
