(I've included some results from the AIM
Independent Resource Benchmark as well as the startup logs from the
kernel), and overall system performance appears to be fine. However,
Java performance, especially Swing, is horrible. When running a Swing
application (the Stylepad demo included
I would be more than happy to help with builds of the Blackdown JVM.
What do we have to do to get CVS access?
Narendra Sankar wrote:
Hi Everyone
Since I discovered Jedit, I have been looking into jvm performance,
specifically on linux as that is my platform of choice. I love jedit and it
has a
Hi Everyone
Since I discovered Jedit, I have been looking into jvm performance,
specifically on linux as that is my platform of choice. I love jedit and it
has all the features for me - but I primarily develop in C and C++. One of
the problems I have seen is the slow performance on linux. I hav
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 02:11:51PM +0300, Ganesh Sivaraman wrote:
>
> Is there any kind of JVM performace check tool, which can show the
JProbe, http://www.klgroup.com/jprobe/
--
Craig Rodrigues
http://www.gis.net/~craigr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Hi,
I had posted this a while ago.
I am reposting with some hope that I will be able to get some response
this time.
Is there any kind of JVM performace check tool, which can show the
applications memeory consumption processor load and other parameters. It
will be great to have this in Java as
> I am developing a network performance benchmarking program with java. I
>have resently intalled jdk1.1.7 in my redhat5.1but i am getting very slow
>prefrormance. i.e. a for loop from 0 to 3x10^7 takes about 10 secs while
>when using vcafe in windows95 itneeds about 1 sec on the same machine. I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am developing a network performance benchmarking program with java. I
> have resently intalled jdk1.1.7 in my redhat5.1but i am getting very slow
> prefrormance. i.e. a for loop from 0 to 3x10^7 takes about 10 secs while
> when using vcafe in windows95 itneeds about
I am developing a network performance benchmarking program with java. I
have resently intalled jdk1.1.7 in my redhat5.1but i am getting very slow
prefrormance. i.e. a for loop from 0 to 3x10^7 takes about 10 secs while
when using vcafe in windows95 itneeds about 1 sec on the same machine. I a
Also, "acceptable performance" depends on your application. If you
want to write big numerical codes that run for three months, stick with
FORTRAN. If your Java app spends most of it's time waiting for queries
to get back from a database, information to come over the net, or for
a user t
Scimark results:
Machine: Pentium 200MMX
Memory: 32MB
Linux Kernal Version: 2.0.35
Java Version: JDK 1.1.7v1a
JIT: TYA 1.2
Benchmarks run at command line within X-Windows.
No JIT: 6.7
TYA 1.2: 15.1
"Marvin McNett II (GTA)" wrote:
> I recently ran the Java benchmark at:
>
> http://math.nist.gov/scimark/
>
> on my 300MHz PII Linux machine with Netscape 4.5. To my astonishment, the
> results were terrible! Since I can dual boot, I started up Windows 95 (a
> rare occurance) and ran th
Well, I just ran it on a 233 MHz Pentium with the appletviewer, JDK 1.1.7v1a and
TYA 1.2, and got a score of 13.0, while according to the table, the performance
of the Dell Optiplex 200 MHz P6, Win 95, Netscape 4.04 is 42.5 (about three
times). I don't do Windows, so I can't tell you what the resu
I recently ran the Java benchmark at:
http://math.nist.gov/scimark/
on my 300MHz PII Linux machine with Netscape 4.5. To my astonishment, the
results were terrible! Since I can dual boot, I started up Windows 95 (a
rare occurance) and ran the benchmark again (and again with Netscape 4.
I agree with you about MS's lack of JNI support , however there
is on very large "Pure java" type of application that will not run
under MS's JVM and they are RMI applets and application.
The classes.zip that is shipped with IE4.x , NT 4.0 and 95/98 do not
contain
the java.rmi.* core package whic
Sure, just what we need is another "agency" to protect us from
ourselves ( re: Microsoft ).
Bruce Mutch
Jauvane Cavalcante de Oliveira wrote:
> > Why did Microsoft do this? Because they were trying to optimize the performance
>of WFC
> > calls (their Java interface to MFC). MFC is, of course, native code. If WFC
>required
> > memory copies for every access to Java memory, the performance of
> Why did Microsoft do this? Because they were trying to optimize the performance of
>WFC
> calls (their Java interface to MFC). MFC is, of course, native code. If WFC
>required
> memory copies for every access to Java memory, the performance of WFC would suck. So
> Microsoft chose not to im
I'm not one to normally defend Microsoft, but their JVM is a "true" JVM.
The area that they depart from the Java standard is in their choice to leave out
support for JNI (Java Native Interface). The reason they chose to do this is that JNI
specifies that Java objects can be moved around in memor
I agree it is good to see (yeah Linux), but it is also a strange comparison.
But my point was, is Micro$oft's sdk really a TRUE JVM? Didn't they buy performace
at the cost of portablity? Don't they play funny games with the low level calls
that get close to the OS?
I have no first hand knowledge
I agree. Tower J is somewhat limited in terms of full java capabilities, ie
compiles the complete application before hand. Now if the linux JVM were to
perform as well as some *other* vendor's JVM, we would all have great reason to
celebrate! Please do not misunderstand, I love linux and java.
Although this is good to see, it is hardly fair to compare a native code
compiler (a commercial one, at that) against a true JVM (which in Microsoft's
case was only slightly slower)
regards
[ bryce ]
Mario Camou wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Check this out (I'm not including the full text in the int
Hi all,
Check this out (I'm not including the full text in the interest of conserving
bandwidth):
http://www.internetworld.com/print/current/webdev/19981123-java.html
Way to go!
22 matches
Mail list logo
