From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,7840ada5c7a0804 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe19.iad.POSTED!00000000!not-for-mail From: Brad Moore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ANN: Storage pool for Ada 2005 with bindings to Apache Runtime Pools library References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.145.219.1 X-Complaints-To: internet.abuse@sjrb.ca X-Trace: newsfe19.iad 1301001944 68.145.219.1 (Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:25:44 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:25:44 UTC Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:25:44 -0600 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18435 Date: 2011-03-24T15:25:44-06:00 List-Id: On 24/03/2011 9:59 AM, Brian Drummond wrote: > Great work, and certainly blows the doors off my puny efforts! > > You may be right about tuning the number of threads; on my (AMD Phenom) > system, my version (#3) gave the same runtime for 4 or 8 tasks, but on > the test system (Intel Q6600) 8 tasks was about 10% slower than 4. (The > memory footprint was doubled, suggesting memory or cache limitations on > the Intel system). > > It may be worth posting the Deepend version - either there, or is there a > place on Rosetta for it? - as a demonstration of the flexibility of Ada's > storage pools. > > - Brian Thanks for your version also, In particular, the output generation from your version saved me from having to fiddle around with getting the output to come out right. I actually set the number of workers to 5, which was a bit surprising to me. I believe there are 9 iterations, which is why the number of workers doesnt come out to an even number. On my system, an AMD Quadcore, 5 workers gave me the best time. I was thinking 9 would have been the best number. It may be that 4 is a better number on their machine. I should maybe ask the maintainers of the benchmarks to try running with 4 to see if that runs any better. I was thought about posting the Deepend version, (there are actually two versions, one that uses nested access types that relies on Ada's ability to clean up objects when access types get finalized, using the new operator, and the second version that uses calls to Deepend's generic allocate procedure that lets you use a single access type with different pool objects. The reason I decided against posting the result was more that the one that was there involves less source code, and might be better for language comparisons. I'm not aware of Rosetta. I'll see if I can find that site. Thanks, Brad