Debian (host) "'4,855 per second'"

Ubuntu (vbox) "'4,709 per second'"

Win XP (vbox) "'504.099 per second'"

The difference here is just one order of magnitude and not two... so maybe I should take apart CompileMethod>>putSource:inFile:withPreambule statement by statement.

Is there some more convenient way to do it than wrap each statement in a block? Some way to profile a method or something.

Peter




On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:

> On 30 Jun 2015, at 18:36, Peter Uhn��k <i.uhnak@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@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, phil@highoctane.be <phil@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 Blizni��enko" <bliznjan@fit.cvut.cz> a ��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 Blizni��enko 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-tp4834668p4834713.html
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mariano
> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
>