I tried getting voicenet UN-banned. but no luck. This will be the last
time i will try to indirectly write a mail to u
"Wolfgang HOSCHEK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>", though no
fault of our own. :-/
But I thought this info may be of some use.
gat
Tried ur benchmark t
> Remote host said: 550 This domain is banned.
No idea what this is. (We're an org with >1000 people, receiving tons of
mail, we're certainly not a phantom). Anyway.
> Ok, i'll try again.
> how do u specifically run the programs?
> gat
That's not a very specific question, maybe being answer
ME-Version: 1.0
To: Wolfgang HOSCHEK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RC3 Matrix Benchmark
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ok, i'll try again.
how do u specif
Any way to get in touch with this guy ? i keep getting Remote host said: 550 This
domain is banned.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Mark Christiaens wrote:
> I'm not familiar with this benchmark. What is better? Higher or lower
> values? Can these benchmarks also be run on a 1.1 JVM? I'm especially
> interested in the IBM machine which is 1.1.8.
We have results from IBM's 1.1
f our analysis framework.
>
> Here are the results. These results are not scientific; in particular, I
> only ran each benchmark once; usually we will run them five times. So
> they should only be considered as an approximate measurement of the
> performance of the various VM's
each benchmark once; usually we will run them five times. So
they should only be considered as an approximate measurement of the
performance of the various VM's.
BlackdownSun Blackdown+javacomp
compress 66.01 70.45 70.75
db 146.54 112.34 1
ow no significant difference. RC3 shows some speedup for
matrix-matrix mult ("zMult") and equation solving ("solve"), but perhaps
still not significant.
Note that these results are only representative for certain application
types and should not be overly generalized. They mainly
[EMAIL PROTECTED](noisebrain) wrote:
> Benchmarks updated for borland's javacomp - this jit does not
> compile routines that are only called once,
The JIT take notice of enviroment variables
JAVA_COMPILER_THRESHOLD and JAVA_COMPILER_VERBOSE.
The default value of JAVA_COMPILER_THRESHOLD is `1',
Benchmarks updated for borland's javacomp - this jit does not
compile routines that are only called once, so the benchmark main
now calls the top-level benchmark routine with an iteration of 1,
then calls again with the desired iteration
>
> >>To add another reason why nobody should draw conclusions quite yet:
> >>Kaffe's benchmarks were obtained with a version of its class libraries
> >>that was compiled with jikes, which is often considered to create
> >>the slowest bytecode among the different javac compilers.
> >
> >Is it? C
ink we
>have done a good job using efficient algorithms in the compiler.
What we really need IMHO is a good comparison written up. I have access
to a very good benchmark suite at work that I hope to use to this end
sometime this winter, but first I've got to get my machine into a usable
>To add another reason why nobody should draw conclusions quite yet:
>Kaffe's benchmarks were obtained with a version of its class libraries
>that was compiled with jikes, which is often considered to create
>the slowest bytecode among the different javac compilers.
Is it? Can you point me towa
> I wonder how much speedup can be achieved by using tools like
> Jopt ( http://www-i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/~markusj ). Are there any
> benchmarks yet?
My guess is that all good JIT compilers do pretty advanced optimizations
which trump whatever JOpt is doing. In fact, some JIT compilers p
Hi!
On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 Godmar Back wrote:
>To add another reason why nobody should draw conclusions quite yet:
>Kaffe's benchmarks were obtained with a version of its class libraries
>that was compiled with jikes, which is often considered to create
>the slowest bytecode among the differe
>>Finally, I can hold my head up with pride :-)
>Why? Were you involved in developing the IBM JDK? ;-)
No, it's just that my friends who do Java on Windows can't laugh at me
anymore.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
. . . .. . . . http://
>
> >I ran the JVMSpec98 benchmarks from the cmdline to see how Kaffe
> >measures up against other JVMs.
>
> Wow, nice numbers. I'm excited to see that ibmjdk on Linux is now in
> the same ballpark (or faster!) as msjvm and the Sun VM on Windows.
> Finally, I can hold my head up with pride :-)
>I ran the JVMSpec98 benchmarks from the cmdline to see how Kaffe
>measures up against other JVMs.
Wow, nice numbers. I'm excited to see that ibmjdk on Linux is now in
the same ballpark (or faster!) as msjvm and the Sun VM on Windows.
Finally, I can hold my head up with pride :-)
How do other pe
>
> Personally, I'd be interested to see info about non-Blackdown free
> JVMs. We don't hear too much about them on this list. That would
> have been an interesting comparison.
>
I ran the JVMSpec98 benchmarks from the cmdline to see how Kaffe
measures up against other JVMs.
Here's the estim
phaWorks IBM 1.1.8 JIT
> (http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com)
IBM JVM known as MMI (mixed mode interpreter) is
different from Sun's one which is ported by Blackdown
team. The difference should affect benchmark results.
It's interesting to compare IBM's JVM and Sun's classic VM.
A
were conducted on an unloaded dual processor
> Pentium II/400mhz running Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.2.8). Each
> benchmark execution was repeated ten times. We discarded the maximum
> and minimum results, and averaged the remaining 8 execution times.
>
> The first 9 benchmarks co
On Tue, Oct 12, 1999 at 08:51:29PM -0500, Chris Abbey wrote:
>
> >A # indicates that the run failed validity checks.
>
> poor bor...er...inprise
You can use Borland :). Anyway, the result is not bad since the JIT
has been released as a public Beta test and we'd like to know more
details abo
3 - 4 times.
Jacob
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Benchmarks comparisons between Java and C/C++.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Lee
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jacob Nikom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 11:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
ocessor Pentium
> II/400mhz running Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.2.8). Each benchmark
> execution was
> repeated ten times. We discarded the maximum and minimum results, and
> averaged
> the remaining 8 execution times.
>
> The first 9 benchmarks come from the specJVM98 benchmark
Interesting comments.
> >benchmark execution was repeated ten times. We discarded the maximum
> >and minimum results, and averaged the remaining 8 execution times.
>
> very good methodology... sure wish more people would do that.
Yes - it sounds like a nice mix between
On 1999-10-12 13:52:58 -0400, Raja Vallee-Rai wrote:
> The following tests were conducted on an unloaded dual processor
> Pentium II/400mhz running Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.2.8). Each
> benchmark execution was repeated ten times. We discarded the maximum
> and minimum results,
processor
>Pentium II/400mhz running Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.2.8). Each
how much RAM? Swap?
>benchmark execution was repeated ten times. We discarded the maximum
>and minimum results, and averaged the remaining 8 execution times.
very good methodology... sure wish more people would d
Hello again,
I took for granted the notation that I used in the results. It might be
confusing for anyone who hasn't seen it before. Here are some
explanations:
The first column are in seconds, and are the execution times for the
benchmarks under the Sun JIT. All the other numbers are ratios
unity.
The following tests were conducted on an unloaded dual processor
Pentium II/400mhz running Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.2.8). Each
benchmark execution was repeated ten times. We discarded the maximum
and minimum results, and averaged the remaining 8 execution times.
The first 9 benchmarks come
). Each benchmark
execution was
repeated ten times. We discarded the maximum and minimum results, and
averaged
the remaining 8 execution times.
The first 9 benchmarks come from the specJVM98 benchmark suite
(http://www.spec.org), and the last two benchmarks come from our own
private
collection.
base(s
A few simple benchmarks comparing blackdown, the ibm jdk116, and gcc
are at:
www.idiom.com/~zilla/Computer/javaCbenchmark.html
--
jp lewis director software r&d dreamquest digital images
805 578
Hi,
> hold on - this post was intended to be just a statement of fact,
> not a complaint. I use blackdown and am very grateful for its existence.
> I've timed tya across releases, and it's gotten steadily faster over the
> last 6 months. The fact that it already keeps up with the sun-supplied
[EMAIL PROTECTED]("J.P.Lewis") wrote:
> I primarily wanted to point out the curious fact that the
> jit supplied by sun for Windows is much faster than the
> jit supplied by sun for Linux, and to ask what this meant.
A possible reason is that they are differing
implementations. The JIT with JDK
>> but I'm afraid I have to say your followup comparisons are unfair...
>
>hold on - this post was intended to be just a statement of fact,
>not a complaint. I use blackdown and am very grateful for its existence.
I didn't think it was a complaint at all... just can't see the logical
basis for
On Mon, 3 May 1999, J.P.Lewis wrote:
> > but I'm afraid I have to say your followup comparisons are unfair...
>
> hold on - this post was intended to be just a statement of fact,
> not a complaint. I use blackdown and am very grateful for its existence.
> I've timed tya across releases, and i
> but I'm afraid I have to say your followup comparisons are unfair...
hold on - this post was intended to be just a statement of fact,
not a complaint. I use blackdown and am very grateful for its existence.
I've timed tya across releases, and it's gotten steadily faster over the
last 6 month
y cannot legally supply the Windows jit? Where
>did this jit come from?
Which windows jit? the Symantic jit they shipped with 116+ or the "sunwjit"
they ship with 1.2? the first one they licensed binaries from Symantic,
originally in the "preformance pack" they had for 115
There is a very good article that benchmarks a number of jvms
including the blackdown jdk1.1.7+tya at
http://www.javalobby.org/features/jpr
One interesting point is that TYA is on various benchmarks
2-8 times slower than the Symantec jit included with Sun's java
under Windows (which in turn
Kontorotsui wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I hope this is not OT.
>
> I have a Java distributed application that works on a network of Linux PCs.
> Is there a way to tell, at the end of the computation, how much time was spent
> for each method (of course I mean on the local istance of the program)
Hello,
I hope this is not OT.
I have a Java distributed application that works on a network of Linux PCs.
Is there a way to tell, at the end of the computation, how much time was spent
for each method (of course I mean on the local istance of the program)?
Something like...
method updat
Dan,
I've heard the same thing from Steve Byrne, much to my dismay, but I
believe our test places less emphasis on socket performance than VolanoMark
does, which could mean less of a speed improvement running our benchmark.
Only testing will tell, I suppose. Thanks for the info!
Tom
Hi Mr. Young,
I enjoyed reading your article,
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayTC.pl?/980914analysis.htm
I really liked your technique of factoring out
everything but the Java VM in question. Good job!
I understand that Blackdown's JDK1.1.6v4a has removed
a bottleneck that impacted its Vo
Per Widerlund wrote:
> Where can I find a widely used benchmark program?
>
> There are currently quite many JVM:s available for
> Linux, and it would be nice to be able to compare
> them.
Search javaworld - they have some good stuff on the Volanomark:
http://www.javaworld.com/
--
| From: qtxperw / mime, , , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| To: java-linux / mime, , , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Benchmark
| Date: Friday, September 04, 1998 11:19AM
|
| Hello all!
|
| Where can I find a widely used benchmark program?
|
| There are currently quite many JVM:s available for
>Hello all!
>
>Where can I find a widely used benchmark program?
>
>There are currently quite many JVM:s available for
>Linux, and it would be nice to be able to compare
>them.
More probably you have already knew about this VM_SPEC tool:
http://java.sun.com/featu
Hello all!
Where can I find a widely used benchmark program?
There are currently quite many JVM:s available for
Linux, and it would be nice to be able to compare
them.
/Per Widerlund
Bernd Kreimeier wrote:
> Albrecht Kleine writes:
> > > http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-08-1998/jw-08-volanomark.html
> > If they are using much ``synchronized'' methods TYA
> > won't help too much.
>
> Yeah, well, it seems the source is n/a, so who can tell?
>
>
Albrecht Kleine writes:
> > http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-08-1998/jw-08-volanomark.html
> If they are using much ``synchronized'' methods TYA
> won't help too much.
Yeah, well, it seems the source is n/a, so who can tell?
b.
Leo Cyr writes:
> > Interesting article comparing Java VMs at
> > http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-08-1998/jw-08-volanomark.html
> Linux's results in these tests disturb me. I'd like to hear come
> commentary from those who know the VM and Linux internals!
These results do not distur
Hi,
> Matthew Hunter wrote:
> > > > http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-08-1998/jw-08-volanomark.html
> >
> > have JIT compilers. The Linux JDK doesn't by default, but you can plug
> > TYA in and use it, which should give a significant performance increase,
> > albeit not sufficient to cat
t; have JIT compilers. The Linux JDK doesn't by default, but you can plug
> TYA in and use it, which should give a significant performance increase,
> albeit not sufficient to catch up. An optimizing JIT might help even
> more.
Matthew makes a good point. Also, the Volano benchm
On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Leo Cyr wrote:
> > Interesting article comparing Java VMs at
> > http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-08-1998/jw-08-volanomark.html
> > The results here are oriented towards testing lots and lots of
> > connections. Suprisingly, Linux does quite poorly with both the JDK
> >
The most unpleasent part was the Linux VM being unable to achieve more than
2xx or so simultaneous connections
Leo Cyr
> Interesting article comparing Java VMs at
> http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-08-1998/jw-08-volanomark.html
> The results here are oriented towards testing lots and lots of
> connections. Suprisingly, Linux does quite poorly with both the JDK
> and TowerJ. The article suggests that this mi
Interesting article comparing Java VMs at
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-08-1998/jw-08-volanomark.html
The results here are oriented towards testing lots and lots of
connections. Suprisingly, Linux does quite poorly with both the JDK
and TowerJ. The article suggests that this might not ju
55 matches
Mail list logo
