https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/vw-pharo... Is VisualWorks really faster than Pharo? Why???
On 31 Aug 2019, at 13:27, Richard Kenneth Eng <horrido.hobbies@gmail.com> wrote:
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/vw-pharo...
Is VisualWorks really faster than Pharo? Why???
The Pharo code is single threaded, single core, while the VW code uses something called MatriX.VirtualMachines to create workers that run on multiple cores. Presumably that makes a huge difference. Also, such parallelism is easy for benchmarks that can be split in independent tasks, real world code is a completely different story. Basically, this is not the same code that is being compared.
hello, Test seems old, both virtual machines (VW and Pharo) have upgraded in the meantime. VW has always been faster that Pharo for what I know, up to recent time. Recently Pharo changed the vm technology so now it should be much faster, but I don'r know is faster that VW , so it would be nice to have a up to date comparison. Related to Matrix, this is a nice way to have many smalltalk images running in parallel, but it doesn't seems the case of this test. It requires a specific way of writing the code, it is not as automatic as defining a piece of code "parallel". The thread model of VW and Pharo are still the same, green thread and (almost) single core systems ciao giorgio On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 2:37 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 31 Aug 2019, at 13:27, Richard Kenneth Eng <horrido.hobbies@gmail.com> wrote:
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/vw-pharo...
Is VisualWorks really faster than Pharo? Why???
The Pharo code is single threaded, single core, while the VW code uses something called MatriX.VirtualMachines to create workers that run on multiple cores.
Presumably that makes a huge difference.
Also, such parallelism is easy for benchmarks that can be split in independent tasks, real world code is a completely different story.
Basically, this is not the same code that is being compared.
Ciao Giorgio, vedo che sei sempre sulla braccia; perché non ci sentiamo per mettere insieme due vecchiaie? Lorenzo Da: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] Per conto di giorgio ferraris Inviato: sabato 31 agosto 2019 17:48 A: Any question about pharo is welcome Oggetto: Re: [Pharo-users] VW vs Pharo Performance hello, Test seems old, both virtual machines (VW and Pharo) have upgraded in the meantime. VW has always been faster that Pharo for what I know, up to recent time. Recently Pharo changed the vm technology so now it should be much faster, but I don'r know is faster that VW , so it would be nice to have a up to date comparison. Related to Matrix, this is a nice way to have many smalltalk images running in parallel, but it doesn't seems the case of this test. It requires a specific way of writing the code, it is not as automatic as defining a piece of code "parallel". The thread model of VW and Pharo are still the same, green thread and (almost) single core systems ciao giorgio On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 2:37 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 31 Aug 2019, at 13:27, Richard Kenneth Eng <horrido.hobbies@gmail.com> wrote:
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/vw-pharo...
Is VisualWorks really faster than Pharo? Why???
The Pharo code is single threaded, single core, while the VW code uses something called MatriX.VirtualMachines to create workers that run on multiple cores. Presumably that makes a huge difference. Also, such parallelism is easy for benchmarks that can be split in independent tasks, real world code is a completely different story. Basically, this is not the same code that is being compared.
On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 at 20:37, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 31 Aug 2019, at 13:27, Richard Kenneth Eng <horrido.hobbies@gmail.com> wrote:
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/vw-pharo...
Is VisualWorks really faster than Pharo? Why???
The Pharo code is single threaded, single core, while the VW code uses something called MatriX.VirtualMachines to create workers that run on multiple cores.
Presumably that makes a huge difference.
Also, such parallelism is easy for benchmarks that can be split in independent tasks, real world code is a completely different story.
Basically, this is not the same code that is being compared.
Thanks Sven for this insight. It wold not have occurred to me. Looking at the results with new eyes, I notice its apparent in the sum activity of the four processors - averaging around 103% (including non-Pharo tasks) for Pharo testing and much more for VisualWorks. Normalizing CPU usage I get these comparative results (smaller is faster VW). 0.86 fasta 0.93 binary-trees 1.02 fannkuch-redux 1.02 reverse-complement 1.08 pidigits 1.09 spectral-norm 1.44 n-body 1.49 k-nucleotide So VW is 20% faster on some, 40% slower on others and most are pretty close. Although such a Matrix feature would be advantageous for some domains - just need someone to invent similar for Pharo. cheers -ben
participants (5)
-
Ben Coman -
giorgio ferraris -
Lorenzo Schiavina -
Richard Kenneth Eng -
Sven Van Caekenberghe