search for: performnac

Hello I have ported OpenSSH 3.8p1 to a LynxOS platform. Recently I heard a report from the field that v2 is perceived to be significantly slower than v1. Is this a known issue? Are there any configuration parameters that can be modified to make v2 faster? Thanks in advance for your response Amba

...term paperwork. 6w Create tests for each of cases which are not currently optimized (e.g. have min/max, sext/zext, trunc or unsigned comparisons in the loop bounds or memory accesses). 7w Learn how optimization process work for this examples. 8-10w Enable tests one by one. 11w Estimate SPEC 264ref performnace improvement (yes, I have access to one). 12w Complete paperwork. I hope that it's real to complete this plan in time 26 марта 2011 г. 1:03 пользователь Tobias Grosser <grosser at fim.uni-passau.de > написал: > On 03/25/2011 05:44 PM, Vlad Krylov wrote: > >> Hello. >&gt...

...senation. Optimizers like Pluto will automatically calculate the relevant optimizations, if you generate a correct polyhedral representation. > 8-10w Enable tests one by one. By 'Enable tests' do you mean implementing support for min/max .. expressions? > 11w Estimate SPEC 264ref performnace improvement (yes, I have access to > one). What do you plan to measure exactly? Runtime performance? I think another very interesting thing would be an analysis that shows how much of the hot loops we can optimize. You can use such an analysis also to estimate the possible speedups we can ac...

...al(Sys.getenv("USER"), "maechler") ) withAutoprint({ foo(..) (z <- bar(..)) summary(z) .... }) Conceptually such a function could be written similar to source() with an R level for loop, treating each expression separately, calling eval(.) etc. That may cost too much performnace, ... still to have it would be better than not having the possibility. ---- If you read so far, you'd probably agree that such a function could be a nice asset in R, notably if it was possible to do this on the fast C level of R's main REPL. Have any of you looked into how this could be...

...(z <- bar(..)) >> summary(z) >> .... >> }) >> >> Conceptually such a function could be written similar to source() >> with an R >> level for loop, treating each expression separately, calling eval(.) >> etc. >> That may cost too much performnace, ... still to have it would be >> better than >> not having the possibility. >> >> ---- >> >> If you read so far, you'd probably agree that such a function >> could be a nice asset in R, >> notably if it was possible to do this on the fast C lev...

Hi, Pretty simple questions but probably not such a simple answer.. Does using LVM affect disk and system performnace? There must be some overhead involved (memory, cpu or disk IO) in using LVM but is that overhead measurable or is it insignificant?? Would be interesting to hear your thoughts or from anyone who has tested it.. Thanks..

...<- bar(..)) >> summary(z) >> .... >> }) >> >> Conceptually such a function could be written similar to source() with an R >> level for loop, treating each expression separately, calling eval(.) etc. >> That may cost too much performnace, ... still to have it would be better >> than >> not having the possibility. >> >> ---- >> >> If you read so far, you'd probably agree that such a function >> could be a nice asset in R, >> notably if it was poss...

...ler") ) withAutoprint({ > foo(..) > (z <- bar(..)) > summary(z) > .... > }) > > Conceptually such a function could be written similar to source() with an R > level for loop, treating each expression separately, calling eval(.) etc. > That may cost too much performnace, ... still to have it would be better than > not having the possibility. > > ---- > > If you read so far, you'd probably agree that such a function > could be a nice asset in R, > notably if it was possible to do this on the fast C level of R's main > REPL. > &gt...

...utomatically calculate > the relevant optimizations, if you generate a correct polyhedral > representation. > >> 8-10w Enable tests one by one. > > By 'Enable tests' do you mean implementing support for min/max .. > expressions? > >> 11w Estimate SPEC 264ref performnace improvement (yes, I have access to >> one). > > What do you plan to measure exactly? Runtime performance? > > I think another very interesting thing would be an analysis that shows how > much of the hot loops we can optimize. You can use such an analysis also to > estimate...

...>> .... >> >> }) >> >> >> >> Conceptually such a function could be written similar to source() with an R >> >> level for loop, treating each expression separately, calling eval(.) etc. >> >> That may cost too much performnace, ... still to have it would be better >> >> than >> >> not having the possibility. >> >> >> >> ---- >> >> >> >> If you read so far, you'd probably agree that such a function >> >> co...

...ler") ) withAutoprint({ > foo(..) > (z <- bar(..)) > summary(z) > .... > }) > > Conceptually such a function could be written similar to source() with an R > level for loop, treating each expression separately, calling eval(.) etc. > That may cost too much performnace, ... still to have it would be better > than > not having the possibility. > > ---- > > If you read so far, you'd probably agree that such a function > could be a nice asset in R, > notably if it was possible to do this on the fast C level of R's main > REPL. &gt...

I ran a bisect to find out when Windows XP 32 bit becomes unusably slow. And I found the changeset that caused it. ========== The problem: ========== Windows 8 64 bit and 32 bit run fast and fine in the newest xen versions. Windows XP 32 bit runs unusably slow in anything new that I built from xen-unstable, but runs fast in 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 stable. While it is running slow, "xm top" or

...summary(z) > >> .... > >> }) > >> > >> Conceptually such a function could be written similar to source() with an R > >> level for loop, treating each expression separately, calling eval(.) etc. > >> That may cost too much performnace, ... still to have it would be better > >> than > >> not having the possibility. > >> > >> ---- > >> > >> If you read so far, you'd probably agree that such a function > >> could be a nice asset in R, &g...

1. File is (was) saved. 2. The added code is t(tradeStats("macross")) with 2 )'s. I'd appreciate if someone with QuantStrat installed, to try this and see if they get a different result. My R and RStudio and QuantStrat libraries are all current. I get the chart and this much output. > source('~/CodingData/RCode/Quantstrat1/maCross.R') [1] "2001-06-27

1. File is (was) saved. 2. The added code is t(tradeStats("macross")) with 2 )'s. I'd appreciate if someone with QuantStrat installed, to try this and see if they get a different result. My R and RStudio and QuantStrat libraries are all current. I get the chart and this much output. > source('~/CodingData/RCode/Quantstrat1/maCross.R') [1] "2001-06-27

...t;> >> }) > >> >> > >> >> Conceptually such a function could be written similar to source() with an R > >> >> level for loop, treating each expression separately, calling eval(.) etc. > >> >> That may cost too much performnace, ... still to have it would be better > >> >> than > >> >> not having the possibility. > >> >> > >> >> ---- > >> >> > >> >> If you read so far, you'd probably agree that such a fun...

...utomatically calculate > the relevant optimizations, if you generate a correct polyhedral > representation. > >> 8-10w Enable tests one by one. > > By 'Enable tests' do you mean implementing support for min/max .. > expressions? > >> 11w Estimate SPEC 264ref performnace improvement (yes, I have access to >> one). > > What do you plan to measure exactly? Runtime performance? > > I think another very interesting thing would be an analysis that shows how > much of the hot loops we can optimize. You can use such an analysis also to > estimate...