Re: A few quick emu/pil timings

[O.Hamann]

Am 24.09.2013 14:40, schrieb Henrik Sarvell:

If VM can't be avoided isn't Gentoo more minimal than Arch?

http://www.gentoo.org/


I've seen Gentoo about 5 or 10 years ago, that was perfect customizable 
(because everything was built by needs) but not to handle for me as a 
normal windows user. If the concept did not change since then, that is 
not practicable for me.


But thanks for the recommodation anyway, Henrik!
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: A few quick emu/pil timings

[Jakob Eriksson]

Bikeshedding! Debian. 

Henrik Sarvell  skrev:

>If VM can't be avoided isn't Gentoo more minimal than Arch?
>
>http://www.gentoo.org/
>
>
>On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Thorsten Jolitz  wrote:
>> Mansur Mamkin  writes:
>>
>>> in case of Windows don't forget to look at coLinux and andLinux:
>>
>> Isn't archlinux quite popular now between 'minimalists'?
>>
>> ,---
>> | https://www.archlinux.org/
>> `---
>>
>> --
>> cheers,
>> Thorsten
>>
>> --
>> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
>-- 
>UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
PԔ � &j)mX�����zV�u�.n7�

Re: A few quick emu/pil timings

[Henrik Sarvell]

If VM can't be avoided isn't Gentoo more minimal than Arch?

http://www.gentoo.org/


On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Thorsten Jolitz  wrote:
> Mansur Mamkin  writes:
>
>> in case of Windows don't forget to look at coLinux and andLinux:
>
> Isn't archlinux quite popular now between 'minimalists'?
>
> ,---
> | https://www.archlinux.org/
> `---
>
> --
> cheers,
> Thorsten
>
> --
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: A few quick emu/pil timings

[Thorsten Jolitz]

Mansur Mamkin  writes:

> in case of Windows don't forget to look at coLinux and andLinux:

Isn't archlinux quite popular now between 'minimalists'?

,---
| https://www.archlinux.org/
`---

-- 
cheers,
Thorsten

-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: A few quick emu/pil timings

[Mansur Mamkin]

Hi all,
in case of Windows don't forget to look at coLinux and andLinux:
http://www.colinux.org/
http://www.andlinux.org/
But it seems there is no x64 version:
http://colinux.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ#Q27._Does_coLinux_work_under_64-bit_Windows

Best regards,
Mansur



   I would like to have a 1-cpu-VM running picolisp on a Windows Host.
No X Windows or so, just minimalistic (preferred 64bit) Linux with pl.


--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: A few quick emu/pil timings

[O.Hamann]

> That's not bad on a VM! Maybe it's not that "virtual" after all? I
> must say that Linux Mint + PicoLisp is a wonderful combination. ;-)


Very interesting, Jon! I'm looking for a tiny minimalistic linux for 
hosting picolisp in an virtual maching (VMware in my case).


  I would like to have a 1-cpu-VM running picolisp on a Windows Host.
No X Windows or so, just minimalistic (preferred 64bit) Linux with pl.

But Linux Mint is not tiny, isn't it?

Enhancing my question: is there already a vm virtual appliance?

Would'nt make that sense for spreading picolisp to Windows User?
At least to give them a chance to watch at it without simply by loading 
that vm to their vm player?


Having kind of a 'reference runtime envrionment' ?

Picolisp + minimalistic linux should possibly reside in a very handy VM 
file, I think?


Greetings, Olaf

--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: A few quick emu/pil timings

[Jon Kleiser]

Hi,

I read nice things about Linux Mint the other day, and I wanted to give 
it a quick run on my iMac, using the latest VirtualBox. Get it 
(linuxmint-15-mate-dvd-64bit.iso) up a running was a breeze, and 
installing it on a "hard disk" was quite like installing Mac OS X from 
scratch. It also looks very clean and beautiful to me. The next thing I 
wanted to try, was 64-bit PicoLisp, v3.1.3.12 (ongoing). No problem at 
all. The only thing I miss when building 64-bit PicoLisp, is a message 
at the end that says something like "64-bit pil built successfully".


Then I repeated the (bench (fibo 33)) I did in November last year, only 
this time just using pil64 +. I'm quite surprised by the result:

0.310 sec
That's not bad on a VM! Maybe it's not that "virtual" after all? I must 
say that Linux Mint + PicoLisp is a wonderful combination. ;-)


/Jon

On 06-11-12 17:28 , Joe Bogner wrote:
I ran a similar test the other day. Here are my timings with (fibo 33) 
and  (cFibo 33)


I'm including cFibo (since I can now run it on emu64) and ersatz.

emu64: 21.632 sec
emu64/cFibo: 0.111 sec
pil32: 4.477 sec
ersatz: 12.797 sec




On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Alexander Burger > wrote:


Hi Jon,

> I installed the latest "ongoing" (v3.1.0.12) on my iMac, and
> compared the timing results of (bench (fibo 33)). Not too useful, I
> was just curious. ;-)

Yeah, interesting :)


> pil32: 0.804 sec
> emu64: 10.032 sec
>
> My EmuLisp in Safari: 5.82 sec
> My EmuLisp in Chrome: 8.102 sec
> My EmuLisp in Chromium: 8.261 sec
>
> The fibo used in all cases was this:
> (de fibo (N) (if (>= 2 N) 1 (+ (fibo (dec N)) (fibo (- N 2)
>
> And the returned value was 3524578. ;-)

If I try this on an x86-64 machine having all of them installed
(pil32,
pil64 and emu64), I get:

   pil32:   0.89 sec
   pil64:   0.42 sec
   emu64:   12.3 sec

All quite similar (with the same result, 3524578).


I did also tests with the chess program, getting similar
relations. You
can let play it against itself, with e.g.:

   $ time ./pil games/chess.l -main -'do 12 (msg (go))' -bye


A database stress, however, running 40 concurrent processes hammering
data into the database, showed a drop in speed for emu of only a
factor
of three. Here the bottleneck is in file I/O, locking etc.

Cheers,
- Alex
--




--000502060701020306060305
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


 
   
 
 
   Hi,
   
   I read nice things about Linux Mint the other day, and I wanted to
   give it a quick run on my iMac, using the latest VirtualBox. Get it
   (linuxmint-15-mate-dvd-64bit.iso) up a running was a breeze, and
   installing it on a "hard disk" was quite like installing Mac OS X
   from scratch. It also looks very clean and beautiful to me. The next
   thing I wanted to try, was 64-bit PicoLisp, v3.1.3.12 (ongoing). No
   problem at all. The only thing I miss when building 64-bit PicoLisp,
   is a message at the end that says something like "64-bit pil built
   successfully".
   
   Then I repeated the (bench (fibo 33)) I did in November last year,
   only this time just using pil64 +. I'm quite surprised by the
   result:
   0.310 sec
   That's not bad on a VM! Maybe it's not that "virtual" after all? I
   must say that Linux Mint + PicoLisp is a wonderful combination. ;-)
   
   /Jon
   
   On 06-11-12 17:28 , Joe Bogner wrote:
   I ran a similar test the other day. Here are my
 timings with (fibo 33) and  (cFibo 33)
 
 
 I'm including cFibo (since I can now run it on emu64) and
   ersatz.
 
 
 emu64: 21.632 sec
 emu64/cFibo: 0.111 sec
 pil32: 4.477 sec
 ersatz: 12.797 sec
 
 
 
 
 
   
   On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM,
 Alexander Burger a...@software-lab.de> wrote:
 Hi Jon,
   
 > I installed the latest "ongoing" (v3.1.0.12) on my
 iMac, and
 > compared the timing results of (bench (fibo 33)). Not
 too useful, I
 > was just curious. ;-)
 
   
   Yeah, interesting :)
   
 
 > pil32: 0.804 sec
 > emu64: 10.032 sec
 >
 > My EmuLisp in Safari: 5.82 sec
 > My EmuLisp in Chrome: 8.102 sec
 > My EmuLisp in Chromium: 8.261 sec
 >
 > The fibo used in all cases was this:
 > (de fibo (N) (if (>= 2 N) 1 (+ (fibo (dec N))
 (fibo (- N 2)
 >
 > And the returned value was 3524578. ;-)
 
   
   If I try this on an x86-64 machine having all of them
   installed (pil32,
   pil64 and emu64), I get:
   
  

Re: A few quick emu/pil timings

[Joe Bogner]

I ran a similar test the other day. Here are my timings with (fibo 33) and
 (cFibo 33)

I'm including cFibo (since I can now run it on emu64) and ersatz.

emu64: 21.632 sec
emu64/cFibo: 0.111 sec
pil32: 4.477 sec
ersatz: 12.797 sec




On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Alexander Burger wrote:

> Hi Jon,
>
> > I installed the latest "ongoing" (v3.1.0.12) on my iMac, and
> > compared the timing results of (bench (fibo 33)). Not too useful, I
> > was just curious. ;-)
>
> Yeah, interesting :)
>
>
> > pil32: 0.804 sec
> > emu64: 10.032 sec
> >
> > My EmuLisp in Safari: 5.82 sec
> > My EmuLisp in Chrome: 8.102 sec
> > My EmuLisp in Chromium: 8.261 sec
> >
> > The fibo used in all cases was this:
> > (de fibo (N) (if (>= 2 N) 1 (+ (fibo (dec N)) (fibo (- N 2)
> >
> > And the returned value was 3524578. ;-)
>
> If I try this on an x86-64 machine having all of them installed (pil32,
> pil64 and emu64), I get:
>
>pil32:   0.89 sec
>pil64:   0.42 sec
>emu64:   12.3 sec
>
> All quite similar (with the same result, 3524578).
>
>
> I did also tests with the chess program, getting similar relations. You
> can let play it against itself, with e.g.:
>
>$ time ./pil games/chess.l -main -'do 12 (msg (go))' -bye
>
>
> A database stress, however, running 40 concurrent processes hammering
> data into the database, showed a drop in speed for emu of only a factor
> of three. Here the bottleneck is in file I/O, locking etc.
>
> Cheers,
> - Alex
> --
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
>

Re: A few quick emu/pil timings

[Alexander Burger]

Hi Jon,

> I installed the latest "ongoing" (v3.1.0.12) on my iMac, and
> compared the timing results of (bench (fibo 33)). Not too useful, I
> was just curious. ;-)

Yeah, interesting :)


> pil32: 0.804 sec
> emu64: 10.032 sec
> 
> My EmuLisp in Safari: 5.82 sec
> My EmuLisp in Chrome: 8.102 sec
> My EmuLisp in Chromium: 8.261 sec
> 
> The fibo used in all cases was this:
> (de fibo (N) (if (>= 2 N) 1 (+ (fibo (dec N)) (fibo (- N 2)
> 
> And the returned value was 3524578. ;-)

If I try this on an x86-64 machine having all of them installed (pil32,
pil64 and emu64), I get:

   pil32:   0.89 sec
   pil64:   0.42 sec
   emu64:   12.3 sec

All quite similar (with the same result, 3524578).


I did also tests with the chess program, getting similar relations. You
can let play it against itself, with e.g.:

   $ time ./pil games/chess.l -main -'do 12 (msg (go))' -bye


A database stress, however, running 40 concurrent processes hammering
data into the database, showed a drop in speed for emu of only a factor
of three. Here the bottleneck is in file I/O, locking etc.

Cheers,
- Alex
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

A few quick emu/pil timings

[Jon Kleiser]

Hi,

I installed the latest "ongoing" (v3.1.0.12) on my iMac, and compared 
the timing results of (bench (fibo 33)). Not too useful, I was just 
curious. ;-)


pil32: 0.804 sec
emu64: 10.032 sec

My EmuLisp in Safari: 5.82 sec
My EmuLisp in Chrome: 8.102 sec
My EmuLisp in Chromium: 8.261 sec

The fibo used in all cases was this:
(de fibo (N) (if (>= 2 N) 1 (+ (fibo (dec N)) (fibo (- N 2)

And the returned value was 3524578. ;-)

/Jon
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe