You probably right. But I can't give away the project I'm testing it on and don't yet 'ready' to write a separate one exclusively for testing.
I'm still fighting with getting stable results even on this box :( On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Yarko Tymciurak<[email protected]> wrote: > it might help to have tests in a state that you can ask others to run them; > a dozen or so other random boxes will help you gain the confidence you > seek I think.... > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Alexey Nezhdanov <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> new testing: >> >> ---- SERVER KERNEL ---- >> --prints >> r875 0.04898 >> r822ini 0.03070 1.60x >> --silent >> r875 0.04914 >> r822ini 0.03049 1.61x >> >> So I get much more consistent results on this hardware. >> While this is obviously not the best perfomance (my weaker box, >> with less RAM, troubled with video output 1280x1024, >> software 90deg rotation - performs BETTER), that does not matter. >> What does - is that I can now be sure that these results are >> noise-free so I can safely compare timings from various patches. >> Proceeding with writing 'inits v2'. >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Alexey Nezhdanov<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Ok. Now the confusion is resolved. >> > 1) Speed improvements of 70% and up that I reported yesterday are >> > really exist. I just reproduced a 3.47 times model speedup and 2.15 >> > overall speedup for my app (r875 vs r822+inits). >> > BUT this app is atypical. I have added some time measuring code there >> > so it prints out two lines per each model init. So when I am testing >> > perfomance - screen very quickly scrolls up >> > >> > 2) Simply commenting out two print statements gives me only 1.67 >> > overall speedup given equal other conditions. I think that processor >> > receive additional interrupts from videocard that in turn results in >> > more often checks of tasks queue. >> > >> > 3) I declare all my previous testing results spoiled by noise >> > generated by print statement and inappropriate kernel scheduler >> > setting. >> > I've set up yet another test box with these parameters: >> > >> > Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz, 2G RAM, Ubuntu 9.04, 'server' flavour kernel >> > 2.6.28-11.42. Initially I considered to install a 'realtime' kernel, >> > but it appeared to be unstable on that hardware (and afterall - it's >> > for sound/video processing and 'server' type is more likely to be >> > installed on servers). >> > >> > Will report new testing results (and finally I hope to write >> > 'optimised inits ver.2' patch) later today. >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:14 AM, mdipierro<[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Please try launchpad 893. I think it should be faster on GAE. >> >> We can do better with lazy tables but at least the validators and >> >> calls to getitem are eliminated. >> >> >> >> Massimo >> >> >> >> On Jun 8, 1:05 pm, Markus Gritsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:54 PM, mdipierro<[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > the web2py in trunk can execute models 2.5x faster than the current >> >>> > stable/production version (requires migrate=False and bytecode >> >>> > compiled models). >> >>> >> >>> Will this speedup also has an effect on GAE? IMO one uploads no .pyc >> >>> files? >> >>> >> >>> Markus >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py Web Framework" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
