June 2015 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] Slow compilation on one of my Windows PCs

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 30 Jun 2015, at 18:36, Peter UhnÃ¡k <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I think we've safely established that the bottleneck is disk operations. Let's take it one level down then, [ 'foo.txt' asFileReference in: [ :file | file writeStreamDo: [ :out | 3 timesRepeat: [ out << String loremIpsum ] ]. file ensureDelete ] ] bench => "'512.595 per second'" We could experiment with variants, calling #flush, writing by character, adding buffering, etc, but this is a start. At least this takes the source code stuff out of the equations. > Quoting from previous emails... > > store := [ > method putSource: code inFile: 2 > withPreamble: [:f | f cr; nextPut: $!; nextChunkPut: 'Behavior method'; cr]. > ]. > > machine 1: > Debian 64bit (laptop) > store bench. 41604 per second > > Windows XP 32bit (virtualbox; host Debian) > store bench. 286 per second > > Ubuntu 32bit (virtualbox; host Debian) > store bench. 36604 per second > > machine 2: > Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (desktop pc) > store bench. 13 per second > > machine 3: > Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (laptop) > store bench. 454 per second > > all disks are HDD. > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> wrote: > Silly question: do you have a couple of Nautilus windows open? > > Loading stuff generates annoucements and Nautilus updates are killing performance. > > > And previously TestRunner too (don;t know now) > > Phil > > Le 30 juin 2015 00:36, "Jan BlizniÄenko" <bliznjan(a)fit.cvut.cz> a Ã©crit : > And one another benchmark of linux in VM on that desktop PC: > Roassal loading - 58 s > compilations per second - avg: 262.4682, min: 257.194, max: 289.684 > ...so the desktop PC is capable of better result and problem is somewhere in > Windows, which I was afraid of... > > I'd also like to add to previous Windows tests that with antivirus turned on > everything takes more time approximately by half of original time. > > Jan > > > Jan BlizniÄenko wrote > > Desktop: 386 s. > > Notebook: 48 s. > > Linux in VM on notebook: 27 s. > > > > > > Notebook: compilations per second - avg: 217.7153, min: 5.0, max: 247.258 > > Desktop: compilations per second - avg: 23.1337, min: 19.448, max: 28.155 > > Linux in VM on notebook: compilations per second - avg: 529.0066600000001, > > min: 5.0, max: 573.97 > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Slow-compilation-on-one-of-my-Windows-PCs-tp4834668p4… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Slow compilation on one of my Windows PCs

by Peter UhnÃ¡k

I think we've safely established that the bottleneck is disk operations. Quoting from previous emails... store := [ method putSource: code inFile: 2 withPreamble: [:f | f cr; nextPut: $!; nextChunkPut: 'Behavior method'; cr]. ]. machine 1: Debian 64bit (laptop) store bench. 41604 per second Windows XP 32bit (virtualbox; host Debian) store bench. 286 per second Ubuntu 32bit (virtualbox; host Debian) store bench. 36604 per second machine 2: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (desktop pc) store bench. 13 per second machine 3: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (laptop) store bench. 454 per second all disks are HDD. On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> > wrote: > >> Silly question: do you have a couple of Nautilus windows open? >> >> Loading stuff generates annoucements and Nautilus updates are killing >> performance. >> > > And previously TestRunner too (don;t know now) > > >> Phil >> Le 30 juin 2015 00:36, "Jan BlizniÄenko" <bliznjan(a)fit.cvut.cz> a Ã©crit : >> >>> And one another benchmark of linux in VM on that desktop PC: >>> Roassal loading - 58 s >>> compilations per second - avg: 262.4682, min: 257.194, max: 289.684 >>> ...so the desktop PC is capable of better result and problem is >>> somewhere in >>> Windows, which I was afraid of... >>> >>> I'd also like to add to previous Windows tests that with antivirus >>> turned on >>> everything takes more time approximately by half of original time. >>> >>> Jan >>> >>> >>> Jan BlizniÄenko wrote >>> > Desktop: 386 s. >>> > Notebook: 48 s. >>> > Linux in VM on notebook: 27 s. >>> > >>> > >>> > Notebook: compilations per second - avg: 217.7153, min: 5.0, max: >>> 247.258 >>> > Desktop: compilations per second - avg: 23.1337, min: 19.448, max: >>> 28.155 >>> > Linux in VM on notebook: compilations per second - avg: 529. >>> 0066600000001, >>> > min: 5.0, max: 573.97 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://forum.world.st/Slow-compilation-on-one-of-my-Windows-PCs-tp4834668p4… >>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> >>> > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Slow compilation on one of my Windows PCs

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> wrote: > Silly question: do you have a couple of Nautilus windows open? > > Loading stuff generates annoucements and Nautilus updates are killing > performance. > And previously TestRunner too (don;t know now) > Phil > Le 30 juin 2015 00:36, "Jan BlizniÄenko" <bliznjan(a)fit.cvut.cz> a Ã©crit : > >> And one another benchmark of linux in VM on that desktop PC: >> Roassal loading - 58 s >> compilations per second - avg: 262.4682, min: 257.194, max: 289.684 >> ...so the desktop PC is capable of better result and problem is somewhere >> in >> Windows, which I was afraid of... >> >> I'd also like to add to previous Windows tests that with antivirus turned >> on >> everything takes more time approximately by half of original time. >> >> Jan >> >> >> Jan BlizniÄenko wrote >> > Desktop: 386 s. >> > Notebook: 48 s. >> > Linux in VM on notebook: 27 s. >> > >> > >> > Notebook: compilations per second - avg: 217.7153, min: 5.0, max: >> 247.258 >> > Desktop: compilations per second - avg: 23.1337, min: 19.448, max: >> 28.155 >> > Linux in VM on notebook: compilations per second - avg: 529. >> 0066600000001, >> > min: 5.0, max: 573.97 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://forum.world.st/Slow-compilation-on-one-of-my-Windows-PCs-tp4834668p4… >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] <example> pragmas and example* methods use-cases

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

On 30/06/15 01:32, Nicolai Hess wrote: > > > 2015-06-29 20:10 GMT+02:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com > <mailto:sean@clipperadams.com>>: > > Peter UhnÃ¡k wrote > > It seems that > > <sample> > > is then the go-to naming for now > > I agree with Ben that from a native English perspective, exemplar > doesn't > quite sound right. > > Sample and Example are the two words that most clearly capture the > intent. > The problem with using #sample to return instances and #example to > illustrate usage is that it's a bit too subtle. Even though > technically one > could argue the logic of that distinction, in reality English > speakers use > them interchangeably and it will be confusing. A core principle of > Smalltalk > is to type a bit more to make things clearer (e.g. avoid > single-character/abbreviated variable names). I strongly feel we > should be > more specific and uniform by either using (<exampleInstance> & > <exampleCode>) or (<sampleInstance> & <sampleCode>). > > > <sample> for example instances > <demo> for examples opening a window or any other interaction > > ? > > > I like this one. +1. Cheers, Offray

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Slow compilation on one of my Windows PCs

by phil＠highoctane.be

Silly question: do you have a couple of Nautilus windows open? Loading stuff generates annoucements and Nautilus updates are killing performance. Phil Le 30 juin 2015 00:36, "Jan BlizniÄenko" <bliznjan(a)fit.cvut.cz> a Ã©crit : > And one another benchmark of linux in VM on that desktop PC: > Roassal loading - 58 s > compilations per second - avg: 262.4682, min: 257.194, max: 289.684 > ...so the desktop PC is capable of better result and problem is somewhere > in > Windows, which I was afraid of... > > I'd also like to add to previous Windows tests that with antivirus turned > on > everything takes more time approximately by half of original time. > > Jan > > > Jan BlizniÄenko wrote > > Desktop: 386 s. > > Notebook: 48 s. > > Linux in VM on notebook: 27 s. > > > > > > Notebook: compilations per second - avg: 217.7153, min: 5.0, max: 247.258 > > Desktop: compilations per second - avg: 23.1337, min: 19.448, max: 28.155 > > Linux in VM on notebook: compilations per second - avg: > 529.0066600000001, > > min: 5.0, max: 573.97 > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Slow-compilation-on-one-of-my-Windows-PCs-tp4834668p4… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Slow compilation on one of my Windows PCs

by Mariano Martinez Peck

I would check the processes running and CPU of Windows while loading the code... On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Stephan Eggermont <stephan(a)stack.nl> wrote: > On 30-06-15 14:37, Jan BlizniÄenko wrote: > >> Unfortunately no - all benchmarks I made with antivirus disabled. >> > > Including the Microsoft stuff itself? (Security Essentials/Windows > Defender) Does your desktop have a drive > 2TB? > > Stephan > > > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Slow compilation on one of my Windows PCs

by Stephan Eggermont

On 30-06-15 14:37, Jan BlizniÄenko wrote: > Unfortunately no - all benchmarks I made with antivirus disabled. Including the Microsoft stuff itself? (Security Essentials/Windows Defender) Does your desktop have a drive > 2TB? Stephan

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] <example> pragmas and example* methods use-cases

by Sean P. DeNigris

Ben Coman wrote > I find myself liking the last two... Actually... maybe using > <exampleCode> > together with > <sampleInstance> > will distinguish the most between the two cases I agree that any of those would be fine. I kind of like your last suggestion, in fact. ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/example-pragmas-and-example-methods-use-cases-tp48334… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Interactive table support in Pharo (thanks to the new OS window architecture)

by phil＠highoctane.be

Cool stuff. Let's keep on truckin' This makes for interesting Roassal interactions. Phil Le 30 juin 2015 13:49, "Sean P. DeNigris" <sean(a)clipperadams.com> a Ã©crit : > > stepharo wrote > > Interactive table support in Pharo > > Wow! > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Interactive-table-support-in-Pharo-thanks-to-the-new-… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

June 30, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] RAM-efficient alternative to ZnMultiPartFormDataEntity

by Paul DeBruicker

mikefilonov wrote > Thank you for the link. It is a useful example of how ajax upload can be > implemented in Seaside. > > However, by looking at the code which works without nginx plugin I see the > project does not change the mechanism of request reading, meaning if you > upload 1Gb file you still need 1Gb of RAM to store WAFile rawContent. Oh. I thought NAFileUploadNginx was code to use nginx to store uploaded data directly to disk which would prevent the image from seeing the uploaded data and thereby not change the RAM requirements really at all. Which was what you were considering using in your second message in the thread. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/RAM-efficient-alternative-to-ZnMultiPartFormDataEntit… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

June 30, 2015