[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gcl-devel] address@hidden: Re: Windows versus Linux performance results
[Gcl-devel] address@hidden: Re: Windows versus Linux performance results]
Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:22:23 -0600
An ACL2 user, Jared Davis, has reported running the same tests on the same
machine, both using GCL, that take 55 minutes on Linux but 90 minutes on
Windows. However, the GCL versions are different. I just thought I'd pass
this info along to you In case this surprises and interests you. Details are
below (you'll notice that Jared took some care in the direction of making this
a fair comparison).
------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:54:06 -0600
From: "Jared C. Davis" <address@hidden>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: "Matt Kaufmann" <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: Windows versus Linux performance results
Yes, both tests are using GCL. The Windows test was with GCL 2.5.3, and
the Linux test was with GCL 2.6.1 (which I don't even see on the GCL web
site. I guess it is from CVS, it says November 6... It was from
Debian's apt-get unstable branch.)
Feel free to forward it to whomever, I can rerun the test with the
older/newer GCL if that will make a difference.
Matt Kaufmann wrote:
> Thanks, Jared. I'm assuming that you used GCL in both cases; is that correct?
> Which version? Do you mind if I pass along your message to Camm Maguire, the
> primary GCL maintainer? He might be interested and he might be able to offer
> some insights.
> Thanks --
> -- Matt
> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:46:32 -0600
> From: "Jared C. Davis" <address@hidden>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5)
> Gecko/20031105 Thunderbird/0.3
> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> X-WSS-ID: 13C46A47697516-01-01
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> Hrmn, seems that the regression suite only took 55 minutes on Linux but
> took 90 minutes on Windows, both on this same machine. I am not sure
> what would be causing the disparity, and honestly don't have much sense
> of where to begin in tracking down the problem.
> Some thoughts...
> 1. I ran the Linux test after setting up hdparm to use about the least
> efficient drivers it could, transferring only 3MB/sec from the hard
> disk. For this reason I do not believe that poor Windows drivers
> are at fault.
> 2. The GCL I am running for Linux was obtained through apt-get, whereas
> the GCL I am running for Windows was compiled myself. I would
> expect the self-compiled version to have taken advantage of more
> 3. Both ACL2 images were built from the ACL2 sources. I don't see how
> there should be any difference here.
> 4. Perhaps the unix emulation or whatever allows these unix programs
> to run on Windows is causing the slow down. I don't have any stats
> as far as the performance of "other" programs compares.
> Anyway, thought I'd let you know. Of course, the performance is still
> within a factor of 2, which honestly might be good enough. Maybe there
> are "native" lisps that a Windows user might get better performance from?
> Matt Kaufmann wrote:
> > Thanks, Jared. If you want to do the regression, great! The basic one
> is done
> > by standing in the acl2-sources directory and invoking:
> > make certify-books-fresh
> > If you want to fetch all the workshop books, then a longer test is:
> > make regression-fresh
> > But the shorter one would be plenty interesting. Thanks!
------- End of forwarded message -------
- [Gcl-devel] address@hidden: Re: Windows versus Linux performance results],
Matt Kaufmann <=