* Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) [not found] ` <5p9tpm$e90$1@unlisys.unlisys.net> @ 1997-07-01 0:00 ` system 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: system @ 1997-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I am crossposting this to comp.lang.ada, comp.os.os2.setup.misc, comp.os.os2.programmer.misc, comp.os.os2.programmer.oop erdmann@ibm.net writes: >"@ribs.ssesco.com (" William Nau") writes: >>: I seems i should use Linux when it comes done to processor intensive >>: jobs like numerical jobs. >>I think the conclusion is drawn too quickly. >Just to clarify, how i concluded this figure. I did a compilation of >a package of 5 Ada 95 modules and compiled this on both Systems. The >difference of the elapse time was 25 %. I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency as Linux's. Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have (not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on Linux? ===================================================================== This does bring up another question, GNAT provides a free ADA compilier for OS/2 (among other OSes). I am given to believe that it was originally written with gov't funding but currently is only upgraded because one of the primary programmers likes OS/2. One way to improve the attention given to the OS/2 port and assure its continued existance would be for "somebody" to purchase a maintenance contract with ACT (the company that writes GNAT). I don't know the cost but I am fairly certain that this would be rather a bit much for an individual but if we could pool 20-100 people who are willing to chip in a not small amount on an ongoing basis (I am _GUESSING_ at $50/year or so depending on lots of things)... Robert Morphis@physics.niu.edu Real Men change diapers ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) system @ 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Ralph Paul 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Michael Erdmann 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-03 0:00 ` Geert Bosch 2 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert said <<I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency as Linux's. Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have (not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on Linux? >> One clarification here. The compilers running on OS/2 and Linux are virtually identical code. So any differences you see in performance are not attributable to the compiler itself, but to OS and hardware considerations. As I noted in my previous post, my guess is that, if you are running on identical hardware, the most likely difference comes from the small HPFS cache size in OS/2. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Ralph Paul 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Jerry van Dijk 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Michael Erdmann 1 sibling, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Ralph Paul @ 1997-07-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > > One clarification here. The compilers running on OS/2 and Linux are > virtually identical code. So any differences you see in performance are > not attributable to the compiler itself, but to OS and hardware > considerations. As I noted in my previous post, my guess is that, if > you are running on identical hardware, the most likely difference comes > from the small HPFS cache size in OS/2. What about the ext2-os2 file system drivers. Does the use of a Linux style file system boost the performance ? CU/2, Ralph Paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Ralph Paul @ 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-03 0:00 ` Matthieu Willm 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Jerry van Dijk 1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ralph asks <<What about the ext2-os2 file system drivers. Does the use of a Linux style file system boost the performance ? >> In the only experiment we did on this, using the linux style file system substantially slowed down compilation speed on OS/2. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-03 0:00 ` Matthieu Willm 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Matthieu Willm @ 1997-07-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) What max. cache size did you use with ext2-os2 ? The default is 256 Kb and is small. But with larger cache sizes (4 Mb on my 40 Mb system) compilation speed of ext2-os2 itself is quite fast. Robert Dewar wrote: > > Ralph asks > > <<What about the ext2-os2 file system drivers. Does the use of a Linux > style > file system boost the performance ? > >> > > In the only experiment we did on this, using the linux style file system > substantially slowed down compilation speed on OS/2. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Ralph Paul 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Jerry van Dijk 1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Jerry van Dijk @ 1997-07-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In <33BABA02.2762@ibm.net>, Ralph Paul <repaul@ibm.net> writes: >What about the ext2-os2 file system drivers. Does the use of a Linux >style >file system boost the performance ? If you have sufficient RAM (64Mb or more I would guess) setting: gccload=10 gccopt=-pipe does give quite a boost. -- Jerry van Dijk | email: jdijk@acm.org -- Consultant | TEAM ADA -- Ordina Finance | Leiden, Holland ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Ralph Paul @ 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Michael Erdmann 1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Michael Erdmann @ 1997-07-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > > Robert said > > <<I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency > as Linux's. Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have > (not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on > Linux? > >> > > One clarification here. The compilers running on OS/2 and Linux are > virtually identical code. So any differences you see in performance are > not attributable to the compiler itself, but to OS and hardware > considerations. As I noted in my previous post, my guess is that, if > you are running on identical hardware, the most likely difference comes > from the small HPFS cache size in OS/2. I doubt this, because the cache of my Linux installtion is about 2 MB. Earlier in the discussion some body mentioned the fact, that the emx dll are ported from unix to OS/2 in a inefficient way. Could this the probem ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) system 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-02 0:00 ` system 1997-07-03 0:00 ` Geert Bosch 2 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert said <<I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency as Linux's. Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have (not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on Linux?>> We find some things compile faster in OS/2, and others compile faster in Linux. Be careful that memory and disk support are similar. One factor that hurts OS/2 noticebly is the pathetic limit of 2 megs on the HPFS cache size. In some situations, using FAT on OS/2 will speed up compilations due to the bigger cache size. <<This does bring up another question, GNAT provides a free ADA compilier for OS/2 (among other OSes). I am given to believe that it was originally written with gov't funding but currently is only upgraded because one of the primary programmers likes OS/2.>> GNAT is free software in the GNU sense, it is a front end for the GCC compiler, which has been adapted to handle Ada 95. The port is maintained by Ada Core Technologies, and it is maintained because we have commercial customers who provide sufficient support to make this continued maintenance supportable for us. It is also true that one of the primary programmers likes OS/2 (me!) <<One way to improve the attention given to the OS/2 port and assure its continued existance would be for "somebody" to purchase a maintenance contract with ACT (the company that writes GNAT). I don't know the cost but I am fairly certain that this would be rather a bit much for an individual but if we could pool 20-100 people who are willing to chip in a not small amount on an ongoing basis (I am _GUESSING_ at $50/year or so depending on lots of things)...>> Well our maintenance contracts are based on the total number of programmers using Ada, so this model is not applicable. But in any case, fear not! The OS/2 port is fully maintained. You can obtain the public version of the compiler from many FTP sites, including cs.nyu.edu. If you are interested in commercial support for GNAT on OS/2 or any other platform, send email to info@gnat.com for an electronic copy of our brochure, or visit www.gnat.com. P.S. If you really think $5000/year would support this work, you are somewhat off in your calculation. That is about 2-3 weeks of work in a year (we are a commercial company, not hobbyists fiddling in our spare time). The cost of maintaining the OS/2 port is very much higher than that. However, as I say, no need to worry, it looks like, at least for now, there is (just) enough commercial interest to keep the OS/2 port viable (it helps of course that I like OS/2 :-) Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-02 0:00 ` system 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: system @ 1997-07-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >Robert said ><<I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency >as Linux's. Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have >(not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on >Linux?>> > We find some things compile faster in OS/2, and others compile faster > in Linux. Be careful that memory and disk support are similar. One > factor that hurts OS/2 noticebly is the pathetic limit of 2 megs on > the HPFS cache size. <heh> Gee, where have I heard that complaint before? ><<This does bring up another question, GNAT provides a free ADA compilier >for OS/2 (among other OSes). I am given to believe that it was >originally written with gov't funding but currently is only upgraded >because one of the primary programmers likes OS/2.>> > > GNAT is free software in the GNU sense, it is a front end for the > GCC compiler, which has been adapted to handle Ada 95. The port is > maintained by Ada Core Technologies, and it is maintained because > we have commercial customers who provide sufficient support to make > this continued maintenance supportable for us. Ah, my mistake :( > It is also true that one of the primary programmers likes OS/2 (me!) thought so, but didn't care to put my foot in my mouth any more than necessary. > Well our maintenance contracts are based on the total number of > programmers using Ada, so this model is not applicable. I had assumed that something would have to be worked out, but thankfully we don't have to worry about it. > The cost of maintaining the OS/2 port is very much higher > than [$5000/year] Interesting. Thanks for the reply, Robert Morphis@physics.niu.edu Real Men change diapers ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) system 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-03 0:00 ` Geert Bosch 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Haug Buerger 1997-07-04 0:00 ` erdmann 2 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Geert Bosch @ 1997-07-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In comp.lang.ada system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote: ``I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency as Linux's. Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have (not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on Linux?'' Please use emxload -e -gnat before doing any performance tests. This keeps the GNAT binaries in VM (real memory or swap space) instead of reloading and relocating them every time they are needed. This makes a huge difference in speed, esp. with small files. Because filesystem caching in Linux is better, this is less of an issue with Linux. Also keep in mind that you are mostly testing operating systems and I/O speed. The actual code that will be executed is almost the same, so given enough memory and fast enough I/O the performance will be not much different on Linux as on OS/2. Regards, Geert ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) 1997-07-03 0:00 ` Geert Bosch @ 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Haug Buerger 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [not found] ` <33BEBF5C.367F@berlin.snafu.de> 1997-07-04 0:00 ` erdmann 1 sibling, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Haug Buerger @ 1997-07-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 908 bytes --] On 3 Jul 1997 00:44:12 +0200, Geert Bosch <geert@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl> wrote: >In comp.lang.ada system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote: > ``I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency > as Linux's. Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have > (not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on > Linux?'' > >Please use emxload -e -gnat before doing any performance tests. This >keeps the GNAT binaries in VM (real memory or swap space) instead >of reloading and relocating them every time they are needed. This >makes a huge difference in speed, esp. with small files. >Because filesystem caching in Linux is better, this is less of an issue >with Linux. and set "SET GCCOPT=-pipe" in your config.sys to prevent gnat from using tempfiles. It uses pipes instead. Haug -- Save a tree use email to haug@zesi.ruhr.de (Haug B�rger) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Haug Buerger @ 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-18 0:00 ` Ada for OS/2 Geert Bosch [not found] ` <33BEBF5C.367F@berlin.snafu.de> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Haug said <<and set "SET GCCOPT=-pipe" in your config.sys to prevent gnat from using tempfiles. It uses pipes instead. >> I tried this, it made absolutely zero difference in speed. Are you just guessing that this should speed up GNAT, or is that your actual experience. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-18 0:00 ` Geert Bosch 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Geert Bosch @ 1997-08-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) A few weeks ago, Haug said <<and set "SET GCCOPT=-pipe" in your config.sys to prevent gnat from using tempfiles. It uses pipes instead.>> Robert Dewar replied: <<I tried this, it made absolutely zero difference in speed. Are you just guessing that this should speed up GNAT, or is that your actual experience.>> One last note: not only does using SET GCCOPT=-pipe not have any effect on compilation speed, it does introduce some problems. When GNAT generates informal messages, these messages get passed to the assembler input with an error as result. The reason is that these informal messages are written to standard out, just like the assembly code when using pipes. This happens when a compilation generates no code (compiling a generic for example) and when using -gnatv. So I would recommend not to use GCCOPT=-pipe with GNAT. Regards, Geert ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 1997-08-18 0:00 ` Ada for OS/2 Geert Bosch @ 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Tarjei T. Jensen @ 1997-08-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Geert Bosch wrote: > One last note: not only does using SET GCCOPT=-pipe not have any > effect on compilation speed, it does introduce some problems. When > GNAT generates informal messages, these messages get passed to the > assembler input with an error as result. The reason is that these > informal messages are written to standard out, just like the assembly > code when using pipes. This is rather disturbing as I would expect messages from the compiler to be written to stderr. Especially when stdout is other use. I would think that the handling of messages in the compiler needs some adjustments with regards to where they go. Greetings, -- // Tarjei T. Jensen // tarjei@online.no || voice +47 51 62 85 58 // Support you local rescue centre: GET LOST! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Tarjei T. Jensen @ 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Tarjei said <<This is rather disturbing as I would expect messages from the compiler to be written to stderr. Especially when stdout is other use. I would think that the handling of messages in the compiler needs some adjustments with regards to where they go.>> Read the documentation. Long form messages including the source go to stdout (since nothing else goes to stdout from the compiler, this makes perfectly good sense, also the compiler listing goes to stdout). Brief form error messages go to stderr. The use of the pipe option is completely useless in any case, as I pointed out a while ago, so the fact that it does not work is hardly significant! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <33BEBF5C.367F@berlin.snafu.de>]
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) [not found] ` <33BEBF5C.367F@berlin.snafu.de> @ 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-06 0:00 ` Michael Erdmann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael said <<I have done this today. It seems now to work a bit faster.>> That's not very convincing :-) Did you actually measure the difference. I tried the -pipe and it made no difference at all to the compilation speed of several examples I tried. But a lot depends on your setup. In my setup, I have 80 megs and never swap, so in fact disk IO is completely overlapped (I tried an interesting experiment which was to put sources, objects, temp files, ali files for the library all in a RAM disk, and compile the library. It took, within measurable accuracy EXACTLY the same time as using a disk with the normal HPFS cache. That's why I don't think -pipe will help. If you have a decent amount of RAM and a 2 meg cache, then the temporary files get written to the cache, and read from the cache. Sure, they get written to disk as well, but these are lazy writes from the cache which can be completely overlapped with computation. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-06 0:00 ` Michael Erdmann 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Michael Erdmann @ 1997-07-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > > Michael said > > <<I have done this today. It seems now to work a bit faster.>> > > That's not very convincing :-) > Did you actually measure the difference. > I tried the -pipe and it made no difference at all to the > compilation speed of several examples I tried. I have repeated the measurement. The difference is not measurable, what happend was more simple. I did increase my ram cache from 1.5M to 2M and this caused most of the enhancement in the speed. > > But a lot depends on your setup. In my setup, I have 80 megs and never > swap, so in fact disk IO is completely overlapped (I tried an interesting > experiment which was to put > > sources, objects, temp files, ali files > > for the library all in a RAM disk, and compile the library. It took, > within measurable accuracy EXACTLY the same time as using a disk with > the normal HPFS cache. > I dont have 80 MB, but i allready thought about installing a ram disk for the same purpose. > That's why I don't think -pipe will help. If you have a decent amount > of RAM and a 2 meg cache, then the temporary files get written to the > cache, and read from the cache. Sure, they get written to disk as well, > but these are lazy writes from the cache which can be completely > overlapped with computation. I agree on this and i am not going to install any ramsdisk. By the way i have redone some measurement based upon a software package called rudstone. I did take the sources from the 1995 Ada CDROM from Walnut Creek and done the same measurements: Compilation+Build Execution OS/2 150 sec 97 Linux 135 sec 114 Compiling is slower in OS/2 but the execution time for the benchmark is smaler, meaning better performance. What i understood so far, i have to accept some performance degrade for the compilation in favor of the OS/2 features, but the performance of programms is not automaticaly less good then with Linux. As a result i decided to stay with OS/2 instead of switching to Linux. Michael ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) 1997-07-03 0:00 ` Geert Bosch 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Haug Buerger @ 1997-07-04 0:00 ` erdmann 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Geert Bosch 1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: erdmann @ 1997-07-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In <5peljs$i2p$1@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl>, Geert Bosch <geert@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl> writes: >In comp.lang.ada system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote: > ``I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency > as Linux's. Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have > (not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on > Linux?'' > >Please use emxload -e -gnat before doing any performance tests. This >keeps the GNAT binaries in VM (real memory or swap space) instead >of reloading and relocating them every time they are needed. This >makes a huge difference in speed, esp. with small files. >Because filesystem caching in Linux is better, this is less of an issue >with Linux. > >Also keep in mind that you are mostly testing operating systems and I/O >speed. The actual code that will be executed is almost the same, so given >enough memory and fast enough I/O the performance will be not much >different on Linux as on OS/2. > I have re done my tests again based on the information in mind i did receive so far. The results for a 5 packages OS/2 PM program are: OS/2 : 107 sec Linux: 95 sec In order to get this result i did close all windows of the WPS displaying the filesystem. Now the difference in performance is about 10 percent. But this seems to be the best! Michael ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) 1997-07-04 0:00 ` erdmann @ 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Geert Bosch 1997-07-07 0:00 ` Michael Erdmann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread From: Geert Bosch @ 1997-07-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [Some newsgroups removed] In comp.lang.ada erdmann@ibm.net wrote: I have re done my tests again based on the information in mind i did receive so far. The results for a 5 packages OS/2 PM program are: OS/2 : 107 sec Linux: 95 sec What you should look at is CPU load during compile which should be 100%. A lower figure indicates that the system is waiting for I/O, which can be caused by a diskcache that is too small, disabled lazy-write caching, or swapping due to insufficient memory. When CPU-load is straight 100% you know you can't do much better. In that case the difference of 10% seems high to me for compilation. (Binding and linking is another story, the binder is I/O bound and the linker is system-dependent.) Regards, Geert ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Geert Bosch @ 1997-07-07 0:00 ` Michael Erdmann 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Michael Erdmann @ 1997-07-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Geert Bosch wrote: > > [Some newsgroups removed] > > In comp.lang.ada erdmann@ibm.net wrote: > I have re done my tests again based on the information in mind > i did receive so far. The results for a 5 packages OS/2 PM > program are: > > OS/2 : 107 sec > Linux: 95 sec > > What you should look at is CPU load during compile which should be > 100%. A lower figure indicates that the system is waiting for I/O, > which can be caused by a diskcache that is too small, disabled > lazy-write caching, or swapping due to insufficient memory. > > When CPU-load is straight 100% you know you can't do much better. > In that case the difference of 10% seems high to me for compilation. > (Binding and linking is another story, the binder is I/O bound and > the linker is system-dependent.) The CPU is 100 % under load! Michael ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1997-08-19 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <5ovqj1$4ul$1@unlisys.unlisys.net> [not found] ` <5p06jo$c1r$2@elektron.et.tudelft.nl> [not found] ` <5p38a7$2df$2@unlisys.unlisys.net> [not found] ` <5p93ov$9ro@news.mr.net> [not found] ` <5p9tpm$e90$1@unlisys.unlisys.net> 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) system 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Ralph Paul 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-03 0:00 ` Matthieu Willm 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Jerry van Dijk 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Michael Erdmann 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-02 0:00 ` system 1997-07-03 0:00 ` Geert Bosch 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Haug Buerger 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-18 0:00 ` Ada for OS/2 Geert Bosch 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [not found] ` <33BEBF5C.367F@berlin.snafu.de> 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...) Robert Dewar 1997-07-06 0:00 ` Michael Erdmann 1997-07-04 0:00 ` erdmann 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Geert Bosch 1997-07-07 0:00 ` Michael Erdmann
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox