At the risk of taking this thread too far afield:
Well there's always room for personal opinion for which tools you use. Some
people may prefer a Bosch driver over a Makita and others will happily pay for
the Festool. Any of them will put screws in boards. But some hands will
prefer differe
Why are you (re)loading Java?
Hypothetically, if you received a new version of CICS that took 2 seconds
longer to load but provided every application a 20% CPU reduction during
execution, would you take that trade? I certainly would.
Third digit point releases in Java have delivered substantial p
Think it was the CEO of pets.com on Bloomberg yesterday saying it used to
cost $5M to deploy a server. Know they can lease space on the 'cloud' for
$100 per month.
In a message dated 7/13/2011 7:36:57 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
mark.jac...@custserv.com writes:
maintain legacy programs,
http://www.cmg.org/measureit/issues/mit78/m_78_5.pdf
It does take quite a bit longer to load the newer versions, and the 64
bit take longer to initially load than the 31bit ones, but the actually
"execution" of "your" user Java code under the newer versions is quite a
bit faster, especially betw
apman
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 7:33 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: performance differences between java versions
As somebody else stated, I wouldn't draw any conclusions from just
running java -version. A couple thoughts though:
1) Java 1.4 is really pretty old. Java 6 came o
between java versions
As somebody else stated, I wouldn't draw any conclusions from just
running java -version. A couple thoughts though:
1) Java 1.4 is really pretty old. Java 6 came out in something like
2006 or 2007, IIRC. I believe Java 7 is due soon. It's unfortunate
that Java doe
As somebody else stated, I wouldn't draw any conclusions from just running java
-version. A couple thoughts though:
1) Java 1.4 is really pretty old. Java 6 came out in something like 2006 or
2007, IIRC. I believe Java 7 is due soon. It's unfortunate that Java doesn't
do as good a job of ma
It does take quite a bit longer to load the newer versions, and the 64 bit take
longer to initially load than the 31bit ones, but the actually "execution" of
"your" user Java code under the newer versions is quite a bit faster,
especially between 1.4 and 1.6.
There is a doc on the IBM site (I c
I'm no Java expert, but I would say that isn't a valid performance test in
any way, it is more a test of how long it takes to load and initialize the
Java environment. I wouldn't put any value at all in those numbers.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Matan Cohen wrote:
> Hi ,
> I have Java 1.4
Hi ,
I have Java 1.4 and Java 6.0 installed on my Z/os 1.10. I did a simple test
to check if there is performance differences between this version :
performing 'java -version' on J6 takes 7-8 seconds:
java version "1.6.0"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build pmz3160sr8fp1ifix-20100924_01(SR8
F
10 matches
Mail list logo
