Re: A few quick emu/pil timings
Mansur Mamkin mmam...@mail.ru 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
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 tjol...@gmail.com wrote: Mansur Mamkin mmam...@mail.ru 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
Bikeshedding! Debian. Henrik Sarvell hsarv...@gmail.com 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 tjol...@gmail.com wrote: Mansur Mamkin mmam...@mail.ru 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�
A few quick emu/pil timings
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
Re: A few quick emu/pil timings
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
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.dewrote: 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
