2006/11/23, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
23 Nov 2006 16:34:22 +0600, Egor Pasko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On the 0x22A day of Apache Harmony Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> > 2006/11/23, Vladimir Strigun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > On 23 Nov 2006 14:37:09 +0600, Egor Pasko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On the 0x22A day of Apache Harmony Vladimir Strigun wrote:
> > > > > The numbers that I published was received on P4 under Windows +
> > > > > server.emconf +Harmony-1980. Unfortunately I haven't run Dacapo under
> > > > > x86_64, but I hope we could receive almost the same range (10-20 %
> > > > > slower that Sun) with the mentioned configuration.
> > > >
> > > > And Sun was running with "-server" too I guess? :)
> > >
> > > Yes, of course.
> > >
> > > > Maybe, it is time to track performance comparisons of *different
> > > > platforms* in one place? That should help to avoid major differences in
> > > > our visions for harmony performance.
> > >
> > > Yes, good idea. Should we define the configuration for all VM's as well?
> > > For instance, for Sun we could use parameters from spec site. What do
> > > you think about it?
> > +1 for options from spec site.
>
> I am in love with it too. We could present results similar to how
> spec.org does. Just a list of runs.
> For each:
> * revision number
> * hardware/os summary (number of cores)
> * link to full details
+1
> * more?
score? :)
Scores are most visible things but we can not easily publish them for
all specs...
For example: http://www.spec.org/jbb2005/docs/FAQ.html#Qpublish
== cut ===
Q15
How can I publish SPECjbb2005 results?
A15
You need to get a SPECjbb2005 license in order to publish results.
For more information about submitting results, please contact SPEC.
== cut ===
Another link on SPECjbb2005:
http://www.spec.org/jbb2005/docs/RunRules.html#_Toc102806116
This question need more investigation.
Anyway I think that we should define suite list first.
SY, Alexey
>
> that would be great if we had volunteers on this, to avoid performance
> confusions :)
>
> > > > * Melody
> > > > * marmonytest.org
> > > > * Robin's site
> > > > * wiki (just for the start, maybe)
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > I reviewed - looks like Robin is seeing DRLVM get an aggregate
> > > > > > performance of about 35% of whatever he's measuring against.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > geir
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > > > > > >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> Sergey Kuksenko wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Lets do the simplest thing fist. :)
> > > > > > >>>>> We can do it. We only need to specify a set of workloads.
> > > > > > >>>> I've tried running dacapo with 10 warming stages and we are
constantly
> > > > > > >>>> around 25% speed against the leading JVM (which is always sun5
or
> > > > > > >>>> sun6),
> > > > > > >>>> bea5 is around 80% and ibm5 is around 70%, I'll have more
detailed
> > > > > > >>>> results shortly.
> > > > > > >>> I don't understand this at all. It wasn't but a few weeks ago
when
> > > > > > >>> someone was reporting decapo numbers that ranged from 90% of
Sun5 to
> > > > > > >>> 110% of Sun5.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> on x86_64?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's true. It was x86.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But the numbers that Robin is reporting aren't great either, are
they?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > geir
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Egor Pasko
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> --
> Egor Pasko
>
>
