search for: slowest

Some of the other RHEL rebuilds take one or two days, while CentOS takes 2 weeks. While i can't say if they have more than a hundred users, their speed in releasing quarterly updates is commendable. Technically CentOS is not the slowest, as Whitebox takes the wooden spoon but you get the general idea. :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

In r226336 I shove off 1.2 seconds out of 9.8 seconds for lld to link lld. That's done by parallelizing archive member parsing. But I realized that was not the slowest pass. The single slowest pass in LLD is LayoutPass. Only sort() at the last of Layoutpass::perform takes about 3 seconds (one third of total execution time). It is because the comparison function passed to sort, compareAtoms, does too much stuff. It looks to me that the entire pass is overkill. W...

Hey list, The time it takes for my specs to run is starting to get a little long (~45 seconds), and annoying enough for me to do something about it. I''ve written a simple formatter that prints out the top 10 slowest examples in an attempt to identify any low hanging fruit amongst a spec suite. http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=13943&group_id=797&atid=3151 Just for fun... here''s my Top 10: (I haven''t tried speeding any of these up yet, by the way.) 0.4318470...

...er and without full tests I can''t be assured that future changes won''t break it.) Please see http://rails-analyzer.rubyforge.org for installation instructions and details. Sample Output: Average Request Time: 0.279874593327209 Request Time Std Dev: 0.351590385021209 Slowest Request Times: ZeitgeistController#goals took 30.889858s ZeitgeistController#goals took 29.657513s EntriesController#save_comment took 20.499292s AccountController#create took 19.539545s EntriesController#save_comment took 15.46844s...

hi all what does it mean if the total network speed on internal LAN is greater than the external LAN and why it happens? the extrnal LAN here is the Intenet using a dedicated bandwidth. and BTW the linux box NATting has no shapping at all. just direct piping

At CPPcon last week, I saw a talk by Bob Steagall called "Fast Conversion From UTF-8 with C++, DFAs, and SSE Intrinsics." Part of this talk included data from a half-dozen or so conversion libraries... one of which was labeled "LLVM". The LLVM converters were invariably the slowest. On Windows, the mbtowc (or something like that) syscall was pretty good. Steagall's converters were of course wicked fast, even before he started playing tricks with SSE intrinsics. I found his stuff at the following link (note CppNow not CppCon) if anyone is interested in following up. ht...

As you are probably aware, this is a ever green topic. I have personally tried doing it, testing it and verifying it and I am myself finding this problem challenging and frustrating. Most of the scripts will recommend some form of rate limiting ( or policing ) on the download. But the challenge is how to determine the correct value for the policing ? Lot of the recommendation says use x %

So I finally got a test in after I changed my RPi to the master and everything else (including my Synology) to slaves.  Before I did that though, I timed the shutdown of my Synology since it is the slowest slave to shutdown.  It took 40 seconds to shutdown, so I changed HOSTSYNC in upsmon.conf on the master (“Proton”) to 60.  I then did a test ("sudo upsmon -c fsd”). The slaves shutdown, then eventually the master, but the Synology never powered down and the UPS powered off which cut the power t...

While investigating compile times, I noticed that there's no information in the LLVM coding standards about code in headers. Many LLVM/Clang headers have lots of complex code in headers - I'm specifically looking at the Static Analyzer projects (seemingly slowest compile times, biggest hinderance to my productivity) - that probably doesn't need to be there. Nobody likes slow compile times. What's the LLVM policy on code in headers? If there is none, the Chromium "C++ Dos and Don'ts" <https://www.chromium.org/developers/coding-styl...

...e to run the tests was ~25 seconds on my machine but for the subsequent commit ( r270942 ) the tests took ~78 seconds. If I run the tests ``` cd lib/Fuzzer/test python2 ../../../bin/llvm-lit -v --time-tests -j1 . ``` then I can observe the time it is taking to run the tests. # For r270942 ``` Slowest Tests: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.06s: LLVMFuzzer :: fuzzer-trunc.test 0.06s: LLVMFuzzer :: merge.test 0.07s: LLVMFuzzer-Unittest :: LLVMFuzzer-Unittest/FuzzerMutate.ShuffleBytes1 0.10s: LLVMFuzzer-Unittest :: LLVMFuzzer-Unittest/FuzzerMutate.I...

...Steagall called >> "Fast Conversion From UTF-8 with C++, DFAs, and SSE Intrinsics." >> Part of this talk included data from a half-dozen or so conversion >> libraries... one of which was labeled "LLVM". >> >> The LLVM converters were invariably the slowest. > > UTF conversion is not on any hot paths, as far as I know, so nobody has > spent any time optimizing it.  If you're interested in the history of > the LLVM code, see https://reviews.llvm.org/rC68208 ; it's mostly > untouched since then, except for a few bugfixes. Giv...

Hey all, I have a spec that is hanging when it is running. How do I get the rspec runner to show what specs it''s running so I can which one is hanging? I am calling the runner from my rails project. Thanks, Ben

...that is not good for my plans... Is there any thing in the the 8kB of RAM that is always the same (lookup table etc.) or did you already think of that? I'm curios since the ATmega168 got 16kB of Flash that is as fast as the RAM (I think the chip is made so it limits its maximum speed to the slowest memory, flash. it also has some EEPROM besides the SRAM). //P?r Ps. ATmega spec: FLASH: 16kB EEPROM: 512B SRAM: 1kB SPEED: 0-20MHz Architecture: 8-bit RISC, no FPU. Site: http://www.atmel.com/dyn/products/product_card.asp?part_id=3303

Hello Phil, Wednesday, September 16, 2020, 7:40:24 PM, you wrote: PP> You can achieve this with a hybrid RAID1 by mixing SSDs and HDDs, and PP> marking the HDD members as --write-mostly, meaning most of the reads PP> will come from the faster SSDs retaining much of the speed advantage, PP> but you have the redundancy of both SSDs and HDDs in the array. PP> Read performance is

...set to --write-mostly. > > Sequential write QD32 > 147MB/s (2 x HDD RAID1) > 156MB/s (1 x NVMe, 2 x HDD RAID1) > > The write tests give near identical performance with and without the SSD in the array as once any cache has been saturated, write speeds are presumably limited by the slowest device in the array. > > Sequential read QD32 > 187MB/s (2 x HDD RAID1) > 1725MB/s (1 x NVMe, 2 x HDD RAID1) > > Sequential read QD1 > 162MB/s (2 x HDD RAID1) > 1296MB/s (1 x NVMe, 2 x HDD RAID1) > > 4K random read > 712kB/s (2 x HDD RAID1) > 55.0MB/s (1 x NVMe,...

...69 in the for loop. I have already tried using %in%. It tells me if the values in X[,1] are IN Y[,2], which is useful in removing unnecessary values from X[,1]. But it does not tell me exactly where they match. which(X[,1] %in% Y[,2]) does but it only matches on the first instance. This is the slowest part of the script I'm working on--if I could improve it I could shave off some serious operating time. Any pointers? Regards, Pete

...tever. The last tests I made showed still more than 50 hours for 700 > GB and ~45 hours for 5 TB (both tests were null tests where zfs send > wrote to /dev/null). Send/receive speeds appear to be very data dependent. I have several different filesystems containing differing data types. The slowest to replicate is mail and my guess it''s the changes to the index files that takes the time. Similar sized filesystems with similar deltas where files are mainly added or deleted appear to replicate faster. Cutting out ssh (I use direct socket connections and large circular buffers) make...

...mmit ( r270942 ) the tests took > ~78 seconds. > > If I run the tests > > ``` > cd lib/Fuzzer/test > python2 ../../../bin/llvm-lit -v --time-tests -j1 . > ``` > > then I can observe the time it is taking to run the tests. > > # For r270942 > > ``` > > Slowest Tests: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 0.06s: LLVMFuzzer :: fuzzer-trunc.test > > 0.06s: LLVMFuzzer :: merge.test > > 0.07s: LLVMFuzzer-Unittest :: > LLVMFuzzer-Unittest/FuzzerMutate.ShuffleBytes1 > > 0.10s: LLVMFuz...

...y useful. >> >> But that's just my opinion. >> > > I agree. This way the DirectShow filter for Windows Mobile (based on > libFLAC) will > also benefit from those optimizations. When Rockbox switched from libFLAC to the ffmpeg decoder, FLAC turned from one of our slowest codecs, to the fastest. The difference was extremely dramatic. libFLAC is the _reference_ implementation of FLAC, not one that is designed to be the ideal decoder everywhere. That's the advantage of open codecs - the specification is public, and third-party encoders/decoders should be en...

...5.129 15.7645 17.26809 16.3795 18.368 73.964 1000 b > sapply 22.304 23.2060 25.19868 24.1080 26.814 48.544 1000 c > > So, for this very small problem, there are small but reliable > differences in timing among the three solutions, and the version that > avoids the loop is slowest. I suspect, but haven't verified, that for a > much larger problem, your solution would be slowest. > > I hope this helps, > John > > -- > John Fox, Professor Emeritus > McMaster University > Hamilton, Ontario, Canada > web: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ww...