[Pharo-dev] Pharo 7 speed compared to VW

(Second try in 6 days. Does anyone have recent performance data for Pharo 7 relative to VW 7.10 or later?) From: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Shaping Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 00:33 To: 'Pharo Development List' <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Subject: [Pharo-dev] Pharo 7 speed compared to VW (was: The STON Specification, Cog speed, and namespaces/modules) Does anyone know whether Pharo 7 is as fast as VW 7.10 or later? Do we have recent comparative benchmarks? The comparison should ignore potential GPU-based improvement in my algo; that will happen later. The test should involve some math, file streaming, and the parsing that entails—an ordinary mix of macrobenchmarks. The comparison should be based on both Pharo 7 and VW each running a single Smalltalk Process (one time-slice of one OS thread in one OS process). I need Pharo 7 speed to be comparable or better to justify the port. Pharo is definitely looking and working better. I’ve spend more time with it last few weeks than during the previous decade. Thanks to everyone for the effort and improvements. Shaping From: Shaping [mailto:shaping@uurda.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 00:41 To: 'Pharo Development List' <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> > Subject: RE: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] The STON Specification, Cog speed, and namespaces/modules Hi Eliot. Pharo (& Squeak & Cuis) Float subclass BoxedFloat64 maps exactly to VW's Double. In 64-bit SmallFloat64 maps exactly to SmallDouble. But I wonder whether there is any issue here. STON would use the print strings for (PSC) Float / (VW) Double, and so deseerialization on Pharo would automatically produce the right class. Going in the other direction might need some help. APF needs support in PSC before one can port, but are representable as suitably-sized word arrays. There is no support for __float128 anywhere in the VM (e.g. not even in the FFI) on PSC as yet. I see Pharo’s WordArray. I’ll work on an APF for Pharo, as time permits. I’m using APFs in VW in the 300-bit range, and want to reduce the needed precision to 64 bits, to save space and time on large (5 million+) scalar time-series, both on the heap and during BOSSing (25 m save-time now). The problem is not so much an issue for the JulianDayNumber (JDN)-precision, which is adequate in this app at 14 to 15 digits (even though my JDN class subclasses APF, for now). Other calculations need the more extreme precision. I think I can make 128-bit floats work, and would really like to see a small, fast, boxed 128-bit float implementation in Pharo or VW. The APFs are big and slow. Where in the queue of planned improvements to Pharo does such a task lie? I suspect it’s not a very popular item. Broadening the issue somewhat, I’m trying to find as many good reasons as possible to justify the work needed to port all my VW stuff to Pharo. I’ve seen the references to Cog’s speed and coming speed-up. Are there recent (say, in the last year) benchmarks comparing VW and Pharo? Any details here would be very much appreciated. Having no namespaces in Pharo is, I think, the biggest impediment. I prefer not to prefix class names, but there may be fewer name-collisions than I suppose--maybe none. Still, I need to know how VW and Pharo classes map in order to place overrides and extensions correctly. Besides the mentioned float-class mappings is there a reference on this? Object allSubclasses in Pharo 7 64-bit, produces 14946 classes. Pharo is a little bigger than it used to be. I suppose I don’t need to check all unloaded packages because all classes in each of those will have the same unique prefix. Is that correct? Or, I could just load every package I can find, before I check names. But that little experiment has never gone well in the past. Is the Pharo-with-namespaces issue dead or merely suspended, awaiting a more fitting idea than what VW currently offers? Shaping On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:56 AM Shaping <shaping@uurda.org <mailto:shaping@uurda.org> > wrote: STON is able to serialise Pharo’s Floats, what do you mean by double ? Floating-point numbers in IEEE 64-bit format, 14 or 15 significant digits, with a range between =10^307 and 10^307. Additionally, I recently asked Sven if t would be possible to store ScaledDecimals (I think it implements what you call ArbitraryPrecisionFloats) without loss of precision. I’m referring to VW’s Double (and SmallDouble in 64-bit engines/images). APFs are binary representations that can be arbitrarily large, using Integers (LargePositiveIntegers for example) to model the bits of the mantissa. Before, because STON extends JSON, it was storing all kind of numbers either as float or integer. Now, thanks to Sven, STON stores ScaledDecimals correctly (without loss of precision through serialisation as float, what was done before). But I do not know if this change is integrated in recent images yet. ….. Number subclass: #Float instanceVariableNames: '' classVariableNames: 'E Epsilon Halfpi Infinity Ln10 Ln2 MaxVal MaxValLn MinValLogBase2 NaN NegativeInfinity NegativeZero Pi RadiansPerDegree Sqrt2 ThreePi Twopi' poolDictionaries: '' category: 'Kernel-Numbers' My instances represent IEEE-754 floating-point double-precision numbers. They have about 16 digits of accuracy and their range is between plus and minus 10^307. Some valid examples are: 8.0 13.3 0.3 2.5e6 1.27e-30 1.27e-31 -12.987654e12 …. I see that Pharo’s Float is VW’s Double. So then I just need to be able to serialize APF. …. FIFloatType subclass: #FFIFloat128 instanceVariableNames: '' classVariableNames: '' poolDictionaries: '' category: 'UnifiedFFI-Types' I'm a 128bits (cuadruple precision) float. It is usually not used, but some compiler modes support it (__float128 in gcc) THIS IS NOT YET SUPPORTED …. The class above is also from the Pharo 7 image. This is the largest of the c-type FFIFloats. Any Float classes of this size and larger for the Smalltalk heap on 64-bit Pharo? Cheers, Shaping Le 6 nov. 2018 à 06:58, Shaping <shaping@uurda.org <mailto:shaping@uurda.org> > a écrit : (Having domain problems recently. Please excuse this posting if you have seen it twice. I've not seen it appear yet on the list.) Can STON be extended to handle Doubles and ArbitraryPrecisionFloats? Shaping -----Original Message----- From: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of David T. Lewis Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 14:58 To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] The STON Specification This is very clear and well written. Dave Hi, Since there can never be enough documentation I finally took some time to write a more formal description of STON as a data format. https://github.com/svenvc/ston/blob/master/ston-spec.md The idea is to let this stabilise a bit and to then update the two other documents describing STON, where necessary: https://github.com/svenvc/ston/blob/master/ston-paper.md https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-contribution/job/EnterprisePharoBook/lastSuc cessfulBuild/artifact/book-result/STON/STON.html Also, the latest changes in STON have to make their way to the Pharo image as well. https://github.com/svenvc/ston All feedback is welcome. Sven -- Sven Van Caekenberghe Proudly supporting Pharo http://pharo.org http://association.pharo.org http://consortium.pharo.org -- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot