search for: outperformed

Dear all, I ran a small program to test the popen() function call performance on both a VM and a physical machine. The program just does a loop of popen() for 20 times and records the total execution time. The host of the VM has the same hardware configurations as the physical machine. The VM and the physical machine both have 2.6.11 kernel. The 20 popen() loops run for 0.453s on VM 0.690s on

On 2008-01-07, at 05:29, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Monday 07 January 2008 02:32:47 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> Everything described in GarbageCollection.html should now be live. >> Phew! >> > > This is wonderful news! Are there any example programs using these > GCs? The division of labor is such that the user program must provide the stack walker (in

ACE issued following PR: http://www.ace.nl/news/aces-cosy-compiler-framework-outperforms-llvm-arm9-processor Weird that they don't give any number and use ARM 9, do they mean cortex-a9 ?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Apr 24, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Scott Smith via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> I've been working on improving the startup performance of lldb, and ran into an issue with llvm::HashString. It works a character at a time, which creates a long

Hi there, We're currently attempting to explain a slowdown of an LVQ-type parallel analysis we're working on. We are benchmarking our analysis running over openMosix against the same running via SNOW for R. Both perform similarly on small datasets, but on large datasets SNOW drastically outperforms openMosix. However, these results are achieve running SNOW on the default RedHat

Hi, all: I want to check small files' property(such as date, path, and so on) frequently. The files are stored in netwrok driver and their sizes vary from 2KB to 5KB. I found that Windows 2K outperform Linux/Samba very much after I campared the bench results. I am very confused about it and who can explain it? The computers' configurations are as follows: 1. PC Client It

Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On 2008-01-07, at 05:29, Jon Harrop wrote: > >> On Monday 07 January 2008 02:32:47 Gordon Henriksen wrote: >> >>> Everything described in GarbageCollection.html should now be live. >>> Phew! >>> >> This is wonderful news! Are there any example programs using these >> GCs? > > The division of labor is

..., 56.55 , 50.5x tukey(0.25) gauss(0.2) , 56.57 , 49.6x tukey(0.5) , 56.69 , 79.3x Speed is in times realtime. Here "tukey(0.75) gauss(0.2) tukey(0.25)" was the best combination of three existing apodization functions I could find, and it is outperformed by "partial_tukey(2) tukey(0.5)" by 0.04 percentage points, which is 0.07%. It improves 0.19 percentage points or 0.33% on the default at the cost of halving in speed. By design, there is no decoding speed penalty nor are there any compatibility issues. The only trade-off is slower e...

I listened to the Oracle webcast about their new upcoming development tools. They mentioned that their C/C++ compiler "far outperforms all open source alternatives". I asked the question if they have any benchmark URL supporting this statement. They actually answered. They said that they stopped publishing benchmark results. But they said that on Intel platform their compiler

I have developed a compact at the same time high performance library for curve25519/ed25519 and I have placed it in the public domain. It support DH key exchange as well as ed25519 keygen, sign and verify. The implementation is constant-time, supports blinding, bulk-verify and more. The library is available as portable-C as well as ASM for Intel-x64 CPUs. It outperforms curve25519-donna by a

Hi LLVM devs, I’d like to describe my problem, and then propose new features of LLVM which would solve it efficiently. I'm building a new statically-compiled programming language, and I plan on using LLVM as the backend. The language will have a runtime with cooperatively managed green threads (user-space "mini-threads", each with their own dynamically allocated stack). A single OS

I am planning to build a server based on the SuperMicro X7DBE+-O motherboard. This server will have two dual-core Xeon processors and a 3ware 9550SX raid card. Has anyone built a server based on this motherboard? Are there any issues with the smp/dual-core support in CentOS4 that might cause problems? I appreciate any input. I'm just looking to find out about any possible problems before

Hi, We are considering a transition from OpenVZ to Xen for our web server infrastructure. The primary task performed by the virtual servers is to run a number of Drupal sites with a MySQL backend. The webserver and MySQL servers are on separate virtual hosts. We also have a number of smaller hosts running on the same hardware (a couple of dev-servers, a logging-and-monitoring server, a secondary

...compression setting match very closely, so the accuracy is probably pretty high. I did this comparison on Kubuntu 12.10 64-bit. http://www.icer.nl/misc_stuff/All tracks.pdf http://www.icer.nl/misc_stuff/Coldplay - Parachutes.pdf I was surprised to see that the Windows compile on wine actually outperformed the native Linux one. Probably GCC 4.6 optimized a little better or something very weird is going on in wine, I don't know. The assembly optimizations work very well on encoding, but actually slow things down when decoding. The difference is not very large however. Anyway, I think I'm c...

Vanhorn, Mike wrote: > On 5/17/17, 12:03 PM, "CentOS on behalf of ken" <centos-bounces at centos.org > on behalf of gebser at mousecar.com> wrote: > >>An entire filesystem (~180g) needs to be copied from one local linux >>machine to another. Since both systems are on the same local subnet, >>there's no need for encryption. >> >>I've

The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark the performance of various VMs using the SciMark2 benchmark on an 8x 2.1GHz 64-bit Opteron and I have published the results here: http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/mono-22.html The LLVM results were generated using llvm-gcc 4.2.1 on the C version of SciMark2 with the following command-line options: llvm-gcc

I'm looking for an optimal approach to access Oracle databases via RWeb applications. I'm new to R but familiar with programming functions and web pages for the S+ Statserver. I'm now going through the motions of migrating S+/Statserver applications to R/RWeb as a feasability exercise. I can access databases using ODBC directly in R or S, and using Statserver, but I have not succeeded

On Jul 27, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Sebastien DELDON-GNB wrote: > ACE issued following PR: > http://www.ace.nl/news/aces-cosy-compiler-framework-outperforms-llvm-arm9-processor > Weird that they don't give any number and use ARM 9, do they mean cortex-a9 ? It's impossible to say. This sort of marketing statement is impossible to refute, because there are no details. Who knows whether

Hi: In my opinion, we should axe all pure asm implementations in src/libFLAC/ia32 and the relevant configure options. Reasons are simple: - modern compilers plus the use of intrisincs make the code as faster as possible, if you need maximum speed I suggest you to build with profiling enabled. ;) - there is no support for x86_64 (that is.. all modern PC ;-) ) or for arm (most modern

...t; tukey(0.25) gauss(0.2) , 56.57 , 49.6x > tukey(0.5) , 56.69 , 79.3x > > Speed is in times realtime. Here "tukey(0.75) gauss(0.2) > tukey(0.25)" was the best combination of three existing > apodization functions I could find, and it is outperformed by > "partial_tukey(2) tukey(0.5)" by 0.04 percentage points, which > is 0.07%. It improves 0.19 percentage points or 0.33% on the > default at the cost of halving in speed. By design, there is no > decoding speed penalty nor are there any compatibility issues. > The o...