Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 | Next > |
 |
Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by Fayland Lam
::
Rate this Message:
I'm wondering if someone here did a benchmark between Catalyst 5.7 and 5.8
here is the result from our server: http://scsys.co.uk:8001/34323 the background is Catalyst 5.7011 VS Catalyst 5.80013 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz RAM: 4G OS: Centos5 from the top, each httpd takes 20M more RAM in 5.8 compared with 5.7 5.7 PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 22979 apache 16 0 167m 142m 4248 S 17.0 3.5 0:06.07 httpd 5.8 PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 24813 apache 15 0 190m 165m 4000 S 15.6 4.1 0:02.56 httpd in this case, I really can't let my boss agree me to upgrade the Catalyst. is it normal? any thoughts? Thanks. -- Fayland Lam // http://www.fayland.org/ _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by Tomas Doran
::
Rate this Message:
Fayland Lam wrote:
> from the top, each httpd takes 20M more RAM in 5.8 compared with 5.7 No, that'll be 20Mb of RAM _in total_, as all of those pages should be shared between your apache processes (given that you're preloading your application in the parent process). top totally doesn't show how much RAM is shared by copy on write at all, and so is misleading you here. Cheers t0m _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by Toby Corkindale-3
::
Rate this Message:
(Apologies for top-posting.. have momentarily lost the option to change quoting styles it seems..)
Fayland, I was looking at the benchmarks that you linked, and was just wondering which version of Perl you're running against? (CentOS 5 was one of the operating systems that came with the badly-patched Perl with the slow bless performance.. although I'm sure it's been patched by now? ie. http://blog.vipul.net/2008/08/24/redhat-perl-what-a-tragedy/ ) Cheers, Toby ----- Original Message ----- From: Fayland Lam <fayland@...> To: catalyst@... Sent: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:56:36 +1000 (EST) Subject: [Catalyst] Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8 I'm wondering if someone here did a benchmark between Catalyst 5.7 and 5.8 here is the result from our server: http://scsys.co.uk:8001/34323 the background is Catalyst 5.7011 VS Catalyst 5.80013 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz RAM: 4G OS: Centos5 from the top, each httpd takes 20M more RAM in 5.8 compared with 5.7 5.7 PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 22979 apache 16 0 167m 142m 4248 S 17.0 3.5 0:06.07 httpd 5.8 PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 24813 apache 15 0 190m 165m 4000 S 15.6 4.1 0:02.56 httpd in this case, I really can't let my boss agree me to upgrade the Catalyst. is it normal? any thoughts? Thanks. -- Fayland Lam // http://www.fayland.org/ _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by Stuart Watt
::
Rate this Message:
Toby Corkindale wrote:
This issue is still listed as open for Centos; http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2357(CentOS 5 was one of the operating systems that came with the badly-patched Perl with the slow bless performance.. although I'm sure it's been patched by now? ie. http://blog.vipul.net/2008/08/24/redhat-perl-what-a-tragedy/ ) I was surprised at this, but I had checked a couple of months back and no progress. I gave up on Centos in 1997 because of this, and am surprised how long this is taking. All the best Stuart --
Stuart Watt ARM Product Developer Information Balance _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by David Silva
::
Rate this Message:
Sorry to interrupt, but that is a !!WOW!!
I used CentOS a few weeks ago and i have to say that it could be better if it was updated... But seems that they are with internal problems ...
2009/9/28 Stuart Watt <swatt@...>
-- David Silva - http://davidslv.com/ _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by Fayland Lam
::
Rate this Message:
Toby Corkindale wrote:
> (Apologies for top-posting.. have momentarily lost the option to change quoting styles it seems..) > > Fayland, I was looking at the benchmarks that you linked, and was just wondering which version of Perl you're running against? > > (CentOS 5 was one of the operating systems that came with the badly-patched Perl with the slow bless performance.. > although I'm sure it's been patched by now? > ie. http://blog.vipul.net/2008/08/24/redhat-perl-what-a-tragedy/ > ) Thanks for your update. but it doesn't help on the benchmark since they are run on the same condition. so 5.7 is really better than 5.8 under siege. Thanks. > > Cheers, > Toby > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Fayland Lam <fayland@...> > To: catalyst@... > Sent: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:56:36 +1000 (EST) > Subject: [Catalyst] Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8 > > I'm wondering if someone here did a benchmark between Catalyst 5.7 and 5.8 > > here is the result from our server: http://scsys.co.uk:8001/34323 > > the background is > Catalyst 5.7011 VS Catalyst 5.80013 > CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz > RAM: 4G > OS: Centos5 > > from the top, each httpd takes 20M more RAM in 5.8 compared with 5.7 > > 5.7 > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > 22979 apache 16 0 167m 142m 4248 S 17.0 3.5 0:06.07 httpd > > 5.8 > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > 24813 apache 15 0 190m 165m 4000 S 15.6 4.1 0:02.56 httpd > > > in this case, I really can't let my boss agree me to upgrade the Catalyst. > > is it normal? any thoughts? > > Thanks. _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by Fayland Lam
::
Rate this Message:
Tomas Doran wrote:
> Fayland Lam wrote: >> from the top, each httpd takes 20M more RAM in 5.8 compared with 5.7 > > No, that'll be 20Mb of RAM _in total_, as all of those pages should be > shared between your apache processes (given that you're preloading your > application in the parent process). > > top totally doesn't show how much RAM is shared by copy on write at all, > and so is misleading you here. > do you know how to do a real benchmark? the siege result shows 5.7 is better under pressure. Thanks. > Cheers > t0m > > _______________________________________________ > List: Catalyst@... > Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst > Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ > Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ > _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 vs 5.8 - new test
by Toby Corkindale-3
::
Rate this Message:
Fayland Lam wrote:
> I'm wondering if someone here did a benchmark between Catalyst 5.7 and 5.8 I have a vested interest in knowing the difference between the two versions as well, so knocked up a "proper" test. I have two identical virtual machines, only on one I installed Catalyst::Runtime 5.71001 and the other with 5.80013. Running the exact same app, I hit them up with Siege for a while, results follow at the end of this email. If you want to replicate the test or examine my extremely-simple test app, see: http://github.com/TJC/Catalyst-Performance-Test (Patches gleefully accepted ;) It's interesting to note the headline figures have 5.71 performing 316 tps, vs 5.80 making only 283 tps. Memory usage (for this small app) has increased by 4MB, but is presumably shared. I guess I should look into that more. The same system can serve small static pages from the webserver at about 1900 tps. A real-world application there on Cat 5.8 gets 90 tps. I don't see that performance difference (5.71 vs 5.80) as significant, since most of your time ends up being spent in application code, rather than the Catalyst framework itself. ie. If you want to make your code go faster, look at optimising your templating and database queries before you worry about downgrading Catalyst. -Toby ------------------= results =---------------------- Running 10 second warmup on 5.7.. Running main test on 5.7.. Transactions: 94796 hits Availability: 100.00 % Elapsed time: 300.00 secs Data transferred: 77.35 MB Response time: 0.03 secs Transaction rate: 315.99 trans/sec Throughput: 0.26 MB/sec Concurrency: 10.00 Successful transactions: 94796 Failed transactions: 0 Longest transaction: 0.98 Shortest transaction: 0.00 Process size: 101m VIRT, 34m RES Running 10 second warmup on 5.8.. Running main test on 5.8.. Transactions: 84805 hits Availability: 100.00 % Elapsed time: 300.00 secs Data transferred: 69.20 MB Response time: 0.04 secs Transaction rate: 282.68 trans/sec Throughput: 0.23 MB/sec Concurrency: 9.99 Successful transactions: 84805 Failed transactions: 0 Longest transaction: 1.07 Shortest transaction: 0.00 Process size: 103m VIRT, 38m RES _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by Andrew Rodland
::
Rate this Message:
On Monday 28 September 2009 12:56:36 am Fayland Lam wrote:
> I'm wondering if someone here did a benchmark between Catalyst 5.7 and 5.8 Benchmark, as requested. View this message at http://p3m.org/pfn/3499 if your mailer is too high-tech for fixed-width text. The Setup: Linux 2.6 OpenVZ, on Quad 2.2GHz Opteron. Perl 5.10.0 + debian patches. FastCGI via Apache 2.2, mpm_event, mod_fastcgi. The two test instances were running on the same machine, with the same perl and the same checkout of the app, but different local::lib directories. FastCGI was set to 10 processes. The page I was hitting was from a real checkout of a real production app, however it was the front page of the site, which is fairly light on dynamic content. I figured this was appropriate since it would better show any differences in Catalyst rather than spending a lot of time in the backend. The code still hits several models, 3 actions, and a view, but perhaps it was a little too fast since, as you'll see below, my throughput was ultimately limited by the number of running processes. Each instance was given a "warmup" run (the results of which were discarded) before the following tests were run. My tool collects statistics on the return status, but for all tests the returns were all 200 (success) so I've left out that row. || 20 requests/second (20 threads) for 60s | Metric || Catalyst 5.7010 || Catalyst 5.8011 |===================||==========================||========================== | Hits || 1200 || 1200 | Throughput || 20.00 req/s || 20.00 req/s | Latency (mean) || 0.072s || 0.074s | Latency (SD) || 0.013s || 0.017s | Latency (Q1-Q3) || 0.064 - 0.078s || 0.066 - 0.080s || 40 requests/second (40 threads) for 60s | Metric || Catalyst 5.7010 || Catalyst 5.8011 |===================||==========================||========================== | Hits || 2400 || 2400 | Throughput || 40.00 req/s || 40.00 req/s | Latency (mean) || 0.083s || 0.088s | Latency (SD) || 0.020s || 0.024s | Latency (Q1-Q3) || 0.069 - 0.095s || 0.072 - 0.100s || 80 requests/second (80 threads) for 60s | Metric || Catalyst 5.7010 || Catalyst 5.8011 |===================||==========================||========================== | Hits || 4675 || 4637 | Throughput || 77.92 req/s || 77.28 req/s | Latency (mean) || 0.688s || 0.708s | Latency (SD) || 0.178s || 0.187s | Latency (Q1-Q3) || 0.617 - 0.800s || 0.726 - 0.811s The difference between 5.7 and 5.8 in these results is consistently in favor of 5.7, but by a margin of between 0% and 5% which is not a whole lot in my book. By my unscientific measure (i.e. looking at "top") of memory usage, 5.7 used 138MB of RAM (for fcgi-pm + 10x fcgi children) whereas 5.8 used 184MB, so that's a 33% expansion, which is a more significant issue. I have a feeling that most of that is shared, and so the difference wouldn't increase much with an increase in the number of processes, but I haven't investigated that yet. Questions? Andrew "hobbs" Rodland _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 vs 5.8 - new test
by Toby Corkindale-3
::
Rate this Message:
Toby Corkindale wrote:
> It's interesting to note the headline figures have 5.71 performing 316 > tps, vs 5.80 making only 283 tps. > Memory usage (for this small app) has increased by 4MB, but is > presumably shared. I guess I should look into that more. Here are some new analysis of memory usage on my test app. 5.7 5.8 Rss: 35260 38768 Private: 8244 9620 Shared: 27016 29148 So 5.8 is 3500kB larger, but 2000kB is shared. So we're only looking at 1500Kb more per process. -Toby _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by Fayland Lam
::
Rate this Message:
Thanks for that. (Toby Corkindale too)
I'll do more research and update you later. Thanks. Andrew Rodland wrote: > On Monday 28 September 2009 12:56:36 am Fayland Lam wrote: >> I'm wondering if someone here did a benchmark between Catalyst 5.7 and 5.8 > > Benchmark, as requested. View this message at http://p3m.org/pfn/3499 if your > mailer is too high-tech for fixed-width text. > > > The Setup: > > Linux 2.6 OpenVZ, on Quad 2.2GHz Opteron. > Perl 5.10.0 + debian patches. > FastCGI via Apache 2.2, mpm_event, mod_fastcgi. > The two test instances were running on the same machine, with the same perl > and the same checkout of the app, but different local::lib directories. > > FastCGI was set to 10 processes. The page I was hitting was from a real > checkout of a real production app, however it was the front page of the > site, which is fairly light on dynamic content. I figured this was > appropriate since it would better show any differences in Catalyst rather > than spending a lot of time in the backend. The code still hits several > models, 3 actions, and a view, but perhaps it was a little too fast since, > as you'll see below, my throughput was ultimately limited by the number of > running processes. Each instance was given a "warmup" run (the results of > which were discarded) before the following tests were run. My tool collects > statistics on the return status, but for all tests the returns were all 200 > (success) so I've left out that row. > > || 20 requests/second (20 threads) for 60s > | Metric || Catalyst 5.7010 || Catalyst 5.8011 > |===================||==========================||========================== > | Hits || 1200 || 1200 > | Throughput || 20.00 req/s || 20.00 req/s > | Latency (mean) || 0.072s || 0.074s > | Latency (SD) || 0.013s || 0.017s > | Latency (Q1-Q3) || 0.064 - 0.078s || 0.066 - 0.080s > > || 40 requests/second (40 threads) for 60s > | Metric || Catalyst 5.7010 || Catalyst 5.8011 > |===================||==========================||========================== > | Hits || 2400 || 2400 > | Throughput || 40.00 req/s || 40.00 req/s > | Latency (mean) || 0.083s || 0.088s > | Latency (SD) || 0.020s || 0.024s > | Latency (Q1-Q3) || 0.069 - 0.095s || 0.072 - 0.100s > > || 80 requests/second (80 threads) for 60s > | Metric || Catalyst 5.7010 || Catalyst 5.8011 > |===================||==========================||========================== > | Hits || 4675 || 4637 > | Throughput || 77.92 req/s || 77.28 req/s > | Latency (mean) || 0.688s || 0.708s > | Latency (SD) || 0.178s || 0.187s > | Latency (Q1-Q3) || 0.617 - 0.800s || 0.726 - 0.811s > > The difference between 5.7 and 5.8 in these results is consistently in favor > of 5.7, but by a margin of between 0% and 5% which is not a whole lot in my > book. By my unscientific measure (i.e. looking at "top") of memory usage, > 5.7 used 138MB of RAM (for fcgi-pm + 10x fcgi children) whereas 5.8 used > 184MB, so that's a 33% expansion, which is a more significant issue. I have > a feeling that most of that is shared, and so the difference wouldn't > increase much with an increase in the number of processes, but I haven't > investigated that yet. > > Questions? > > Andrew "hobbs" Rodland > > _______________________________________________ > List: Catalyst@... > Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst > Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ > Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ > _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by Tobias Kremer-5
::
Rate this Message:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Tomas Doran <bobtfish@...> wrote:
> top totally doesn't show how much RAM is shared by copy on write at all, and > so is misleading you here. So, what's a better way to find out how much memory is shared? On our production servers "top" shows VIRT: 70116, RES: 64m, SHR: 3480 and I hope that 3480 is really not the amount of memory that is shared because that'd be quite low. Thanks! --Tobias _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by Carl Johnstone-4
::
Rate this Message:
Toby Corkindale wrote:
> (CentOS 5 was one of the operating systems that came with the > badly-patched Perl with the slow bless performance.. > although I'm sure it's been patched by now? > ie. http://blog.vipul.net/2008/08/24/redhat-perl-what-a-tragedy/ > ) Was patched last year - stop spreading FUD. The RHEL/CentOS perl build isn't the best one is the world but it's adequate enough for most uses. Too much FUD will just scare decision makers who don't understand the technical details and just see perl + RHEL = fail. Carl _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by Carl Johnstone-4
::
Rate this Message:
Tobias Kremer wrote:
> So, what's a better way to find out how much memory is shared? On our > production servers "top" shows > > VIRT: 70116, RES: 64m, SHR: 3480 > > and I hope that 3480 is really not the amount of memory that is shared > because that'd be quite low. It's a different type of shared. That's amount of memory used through shared OS libraries. What everybody else in this thread is referring to as "shared" memory is actually the amount of memory that hasn't needed to be duplicated because of the copy-on-write semantics within the Linux kernel. Unfortunately there's currently no easy way I know of to get these figures on Linux. Carl _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by Andrew Rodland
::
Rate this Message:
On Tuesday 29 September 2009 03:44:33 am Carl Johnstone wrote:
> What everybody else in this thread is referring to as "shared" memory is > actually the amount of memory that hasn't needed to be duplicated because > of the copy-on-write semantics within the Linux kernel. Unfortunately > there's currently no easy way I know of to get these figures on Linux. In my experience with linux+perl+fastcgi, "VmHWM - (VmExe + VmLib)" (stats from /proc/*/status) gives a reasonable upper bound on the incremental cost of a process -- that is, how much your "free memory" total will go up or down if you add or remove one process. It's a loose upper bound because the stuff that it knows to subtract is quite unlikely to become unshared, but there's a bunch of data that's probably being shared that it doesn't know about. For an example: the formula above gives 14,900kB when applied to an instance of a beta app that I happen to have at hand; actually killing an instance gives an increase in free memory (as reported by "free") of 11,400kB, so the error is 3,500kB. The error depends on the app, but it's otherwise pretty consistent, which makes this a good enough tool to use for a "kill processes that start chewing memory" script. Andrew _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by Tomas Doran
::
Rate this Message:
Tobias Kremer wrote:
> and I hope that 3480 is really not the amount of memory that is shared > because that'd be quite low. Shared memory indicates things which are shared at a library linking level (e.g. libc is a shared object which both processes will share). This has nothing to do with the copy-on-write memory which is shared. (I.e. your parent process loads the application, then calls fork - each process sees 'its own copy' of all the RAM, but only pages written to are copied - the rest remain "shared"). Cheers t0m _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by Tomas Doran
::
Rate this Message:
Fayland Lam wrote:
> Tomas Doran wrote: >> top totally doesn't show how much RAM is shared by copy on write at >> all, and so is misleading you here. > > do you know how to do a real benchmark? the siege result shows 5.7 is > better under pressure. I didn't actually do any 'real' benchmarking for this, I just pointed out that the conclusions you were drawing from top were rubbish. Andrew and Tobys memory benchmarks make sense and are much nearer what I'd expect. 1.5Mb more per process is much more reasonable than the 20Mb you were speculating initially. Cheers t0m _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 vs 5.8 - new test
by Tomas Doran
::
Rate this Message:
Toby Corkindale wrote:
> It's interesting to note the headline figures have 5.71 performing 316 > tps, vs 5.80 making only 283 tps. The very important thing you haven't noted (unless I missed it) is what perl version this benchmark was conducted under. Some benchmarking was done before 5.8 was released, and it showed that Catalyst 5.7 was (marginally) quicker on perl 5.8 and that Catalyst 5.8 was (marginally) quicker on perl 5.10 :) So I'd be very interested to see the benchmark repeated with two different perls, giving 4 results to compare and contrast. Cheers t0m _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
|
|
Re: Catalyst benchmark 5.7 VS 5.8
by Dave Rolsky
::
Rate this Message:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Carl Johnstone wrote:
> What everybody else in this thread is referring to as "shared" memory is > actually the amount of memory that hasn't needed to be duplicated because of > the copy-on-write semantics within the Linux kernel. Unfortunately there's > currently no easy way I know of to get these figures on Linux. http://www.selenic.com/smem/ This can give you some good numbers on shared memory. -dave /*============================================================ http://VegGuide.org http://blog.urth.org Your guide to all that's veg House Absolute(ly Pointless) ============================================================*/ _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@... Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@.../ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ |
| < Prev | 1 - 2 | Next > |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
