Shouldn't be obvious I guess (1 tinyBenchmarks '566998892 bytecodes/sec; 16433596 sends/sec') here. Regards, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Igor Stasenko" <siguctua@gmail.com> To: <Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] A dog-slow browser
2010/1/20 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>:
On Jan 20, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
2010/1/20 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>:
In 1.1?
Stef
Please, don't take it as a offense, but as a constructive critics :)
Pharo-core browser is awfully slooow!
can you provide some reproducable data? that we can compare?
Sorry, but i have no time to prove the obvious. You could just start the trunk image at anytime and see it yourself.
Two images running on same VM , same machine.. a lot of difference.
Maybe this is the caching of FileStream? This should make a difference on a slow machine...
Caching should in contrary increase the speed, isnt? And i wouldn't say that my machine is slow CPU0: AMD Phenom(tm) 8450 Triple-Core Processor stepping 03 '85618729 bytecodes/sec; 4708854 sends/sec'
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project