similar to: my xen-kernel is much slower than rhel5''xen(3.0)

Dear R-ers I've recently upgraded to R-1.4 but I have noticed that it is slower to load datasets than R-1.3.1: R-1.3.1: > system.time(a <- read.table("~/people/academics/mitchell/nzsl02.27",header=T)) [1] 40.86 0.51 54.10 0.00 0.00 > R-1.4.0: > system.time(a <- read.table("~/people/academics/mitchell/nzsl02.27",header=T)) [1] 293.24 30.76 478.35

Dear all, I'm trying to write an efficient binary file reader for a file type that is made up of several fields of variable length, and so requires many small reads. Doing this on the file directly using a sequence of readBin() calls is a bit too slow for my needs, so I tried buffering the file into a raw vector and reading from that ("loc" is the equivalent of the file pointer):

Dear all, I'm trying to write an efficient binary file reader for a file type that is made up of several fields of variable length, and so requires many small reads. Doing this on the file directly using a sequence of readBin() calls is a bit too slow for my needs, so I tried buffering the file into a raw vector and reading from that ("loc" is the equivalent of the file pointer):

http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13689 Summary: nouveau is much slower than nv with flash player Product: xorg Version: git Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Driver/nouveau AssignedTo: nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org

On a PII233 system running linux with ogg-vorbis-RC2, when playing a 2-min 48kbps ogg file, ogg123 takes much more CPU time than XMMS (several seconds with ogg123 vs. less than one second for all XMMS threads added up). Since the pids are the same, I am sure that XMMS did not create new threads when playing one song. I think this has to do with soundcard interaction. <p>--- >8 ----

I used the packaged "MinGW-2.0.0-3.exe" exactly as specified on http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/Rtools/ - in fact I used these recommendations throughout. According to the release notes MinGW version 2.0.0 contains the following list of packages: GCC-3.2-core-20020817-1 binutils-2.13-20020903-1 mingw-runtime-2.2 w32api-2.0 gdb-5.1.1-1 make-3.79.1-20010722 (binary renamed as mingw32-make)

Starting udev: Wait timeout. Will continue in the background.[FAILED] so slowly. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Starting udev: Wait timeout. Will continue in the background.[FAILED] so slowly. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

I have both the CRAN binary and my own compiled version of R v1.7.1 on the same machine (Dell Pentium III 800 MHz running NT 4) Using the example provided earlier: > phi <- 1.6180339887498949 > a <- floor(runif(750000)*1000) > system.time(b <- (phi^a - (-phi)^(-a))/sqrt(5))[3] I get 10.99 secs on the CRAN binary and 2.09 secs on my own compiled version. I hope this helps

I''m moving from version 2.7.19 to 3.1.0 and am running into an issue with file resources. All of them using a "source => ''...''" attribute to pull their contents from the master are taking about 5 seconds longer than they used to. These are generally very small files which used to transfer very quickly. This happens with both webrick and passenger. If

Hi all developers, I'm changing compiler from gcc to llvm on a RISCV target now. but I found in some case the assembly code generated by llvm is much more than gcc. It cause my program's performance about 40% decrease. The flowing is a simple test code. It shows the problem. We can see than gcc prefer to use pointer to iterate the array, but llvm perfere to use index to iterate

Hello, I''m using Debian Lenny with Xen 4.0.1 with standard 2.6.32.25 kernel In my new server after some period of running I got 100% usage of udev process and I can''t stop it. I upgraded to the newest libc and udev but the problem is here again. Here dmesg and pastebin http://pastebin.com/JNJPFSHz [1] [229995.580221] ------------[ cut here

I do not understand what happens here (under Win XP): a <- abs(matrix(rnorm(800*800)/2, ncol=800, nrow=800)) system.time(b <- a^1000)[3] took about 1 sec on my computer with R 1.7.0 and it takes now 4.59 sec with R 1.7.1 Similarly, phi <- 1.6180339887498949 a <- floor(runif(750000)*1000) system.time(b <- (phi^a - (-phi)^(-a))/sqrt(5))[3] took about 0.9 sec with R 1.7.0, and it

I do not understand what happens here (under Win XP): a <- abs(matrix(rnorm(800*800)/2, ncol=800, nrow=800)) system.time(b <- a^1000)[3] took about 1 sec on my computer with R 1.7.0 and it takes now 4.59 sec with R 1.7.1 Similarly, phi <- 1.6180339887498949 a <- floor(runif(750000)*1000) system.time(b <- (phi^a - (-phi)^(-a))/sqrt(5))[3] took about 0.9 sec with R 1.7.0, and it

Török Edwin wrote: > Are you using 2.6 or 2.7, 32-bit or 64-bit? > I use 2.7 on i386. lli has debug asserts enabled, but I guess this shouldn't matter for JIT code speed. jit: 11.32 real exe: 7.64 user Both have -O3 option. Speed should be the same. Yuri

On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Stuart Marsden <stuartmarsden at finmars.co.uk> wrote: > I have just started trying Opus with a view to using it in a project. I am > interested in embedded hardware and tried it on the Raspberry Pi using the > raspbian distro. > > The version of libopus in the repos is 0.9.14. I installed this and tried > encoding 2 minutes of speech from a

Yuri <yuri at tsoft.com> writes: >> With >> >> time lli -O3 fib.bc 45 >> >> you are measuring the time lli takes optimizing the LLVM code, >> generating the native code and, finally, executing it. If you add to >> this the debug asserts, it is not surprising that lli ends being quite a >> bit slower than directly executing the native code >

Hello, I've noticed that dget() is much slower in the current and devel R versions than in previous versions. In 2.15 reading a 10000-row data.frame takes less than half a second: > (which.r <- R.Version()$version.string) [1] "R version 2.15.2 (2012-10-26)" > x <- data.frame(matrix(sample(letters, 100000, replace = TRUE), ncol = 10)) > dput(x, which.r) >

On 04/29/2010 11:44 AM, Yuri wrote: > > I run the same simple Fibonacci computing code in JIT and as a native > executable. I see that with argument 45 JIT runs for 11.3sec and > executable runs for 7.5sec. > Why there is such difference? How long does it take for llc to compile it? Remember that the JIT includes code generation time. Best regards, --Edwin

Török Edwin wrote: > How long does it take for llc to compile it? > Remember that the JIT includes code generation time llc takes almost no time (0.00 user as measured by time), code is tiny. Yuri