My first post was comparing almost identical machines: Different Q6600
steppings (the earlier chip makes a good space heater!) on different
motherboards, same memory, both stock speeds.
In a few weeks when the semester ends, I'll be able to try Linux -vs-
BSD -vs- OS X on identical
2009/4/20 Dave Bayer ba...@cpw.math.columbia.edu:
I ran some longer trials, and noticed a further pattern I wish I could
explain:
I'm comparing the enumeration of the roughly 69 billion atomic lattices on
six atoms, on my four core, 2.4 GHz Q6600 box running OS X, against an eight
core, 2 x
2009/4/21 Don Stewart d...@galois.com:
Little advice and tidbits are creeping out of Simon's head.
Is it time for a parallel performance wiki, where every question that
becomes an FAQ gets documented live?
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Performance/Parallel
Maybe put details on the
marlowsd:
2009/4/20 Dave Bayer ba...@cpw.math.columbia.edu:
I ran some longer trials, and noticed a further pattern I wish I could
explain:
I'm comparing the enumeration of the roughly 69 billion atomic lattices on
six atoms, on my four core, 2.4 GHz Q6600 box running OS X, against an
On April 21, 2009 04:39:40 Simon Marlow wrote:
These ratios match up like physical constants, or at least invariants of
my Haskell implementation. However, the user time is constant on OS X, so
these ratios reflect the actual parallel speedup on OS X. The user time
climbs steadily on
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Dave Bayer:
In that paper, they routinely benchmark N-1 cores on an N core Linux
box, because of a noticeable falloff using the last core, which can do
more harm than good. I had confirmed this on my four core Linux box,
but was puzzled that my two core MacBook
On Apr 19, 2009, at 9:59 PM, Tyson Whitehead wrote:
This leave me wondering how do the absolute numbers compare? Could
the extra
overhead due to the various 32bit issues be giving more room for
better
threading performance? What do you get if you use 32bit GHC with
Linux?
Oddly
[Sorry if this turns out to be a dup, it appears that my first send
got lost, while my followup message went through.]
I ran some longer trials, and noticed a further pattern I wish I could
explain:
I'm comparing the enumeration of the roughly 69 billion atomic
lattices on six atoms, on
Dave Bayer:
In that paper, they routinely benchmark N-1 cores on an N core Linux
box, because of a noticeable falloff using the last core, which can
do more harm than good. I had confirmed this on my four core Linux
box, but was puzzled that my two core MacBook showed no such
falloff.
On April 18, 2009 16:46:44 Daniel Peebles wrote:
That looks great! I wonder what about Mac OS leads to such good
performance...
Now if only we could get a nice x86_64-producing GHC for Mac OS too, I
could use all my RAM and the extra registers my Mac Pro gives me :)
I was a bit surprised
That looks great! I wonder what about Mac OS leads to such good performance...
Now if only we could get a nice x86_64-producing GHC for Mac OS too, I
could use all my RAM and the extra registers my Mac Pro gives me :)
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Dave Bayer ba...@cpw.math.columbia.edu wrote:
Yikes! You're right. I never noticed, but I never had an 8 GB Mac
before.
I looked at ./configure for the GHC 6.10.2 source, and realized there
was already something there. I tried
./configure --build=x86_64-apple-darwin
and it didn't work. However, it did give me something to Google,
Excerpts from Dave Bayer's message of Sat Apr 18 19:05:34 -0500 2009:
Yikes! You're right. I never noticed, but I never had an 8 GB Mac
before.
I looked at ./configure for the GHC 6.10.2 source, and realized there
was already something there. I tried
./configure
13 matches
Mail list logo
