Re: [abc] J-LO

Eric Bodden wrote:

>Still, the benchmark does run faster on my laptop than on Cardinal,
>however after I made efforts to get the environments as equal as
>possible, it was "only" about a factor of 4 (however still with graphics
>being displayed on my machine and not on cardinal). This is still odd,
>but my laptop runs Windows XP and hence it could well be that the
>Windows VM is far better in performance than the linux one.
>
>
My guess would be a combination of higher performance on the Windows VM
and better-designed bindings for the graphics libraries.

>So my suggestion would be that if you feel like, you give it another try
>on nikko but possibly it's not really necessary. If you don't, just drop
>me a line and I will do a shorter run on cardinal (probably 1000
>iterations or so) which we could then extrapolate to an estimated
>overall runtime.
>
>
Uh. Surely to extrapolate one needs to know how the growth is? Do you
know? Is it exponential, as the graphs suggest? Such an extrapolation
strikes me as 'shaky at best', we might be better off simply including
the numbers for the shortened benchmark and explaining that it had to be
reduced.

>By the way: When enabling "GC before each measurement", those memory
>peaks went away. This coincides much more with the measurements we had
>done for our SC paper
>(http://bodden.de/n/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=53
>&Itemid=38).
>
>
What do you mean by "went away"? Do you mean the drops disappeared (so
you had a consistent upwards trend), or did memory usage stay reasonably
constant? Looking at the paper link you give, I was surprised to find
your claim that J-LO shows practically no memory overhead on JHotDraw,
since I seem to remember having to provide it with a large heap when I
was experimenting with it. My recollections are hazy at best, though...
What is the real situation?

- P
Received on Sun Mar 05 01:20:26 2006