To: imreolajos; [hidden email]/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=4658984i=2
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
From: [hidden email]/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=4658984i=3
[mailto:mono-list-
[hidden email]/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=4658984i=4] On Behalf Of
imreolajos
Norton [mailto:ian.norton-bad...@thales-esecurity.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 10:05 AM
To: Olajos, Imre
Cc: mono-list@lists.ximian.com
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:12:09PM +, Olajos, Imre wrote:
Edward,
If you want to do a performance
[[hidden email]/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=4658944i=1] On Behalf Of
Robert Jordan
[[hidden email]/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=4658944i=2]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:15 PM
To: [hidden email]/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=4658944i=3
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
Robert,
You're comparing MS' 64-bit runtime with a 32-bit Mono w/out LLVM
support and with a pretty slow GC (under Windows).
I compiled the code with VS 2012 with x86 as the target platform, so it
shouldn't be using anything 64-bit.
Ø Since Windows isn't Mono's prime-time OS, you may want
; mono-list@lists.ximian.com
Subject: RE: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
From: mono-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-
boun...@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of imreolajos
SpeedTest.cs
http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/file/n4658877/SpeedTest.cs
Ok, you've provided some source
@lists.ximian.com
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
From: mailto:mono-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com
mono-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-
mailto:boun...@lists.ximian.com boun...@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of
imreolajos
SpeedTest.cs
http://mono.1490590
...@lists.ximian.com
mailto:mono-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com
[mailto:mono-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Olajos, Imre
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:09 PM
To: mono-list@lists.ximian.com mailto:mono-list@lists.ximian.com
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
Nigel
-list@lists.ximian.com
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
** **
From: mono-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-
boun...@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of imreolajos
SpeedTest.cs
http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/file/n4658877/SpeedTest.cs
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 02:19:55PM +, edward.harvey.mono wrote:
From: mono-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-
boun...@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of imreolajos
Hi all!
SpeedTest.cs
http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/file/n4658877/SpeedTest.cs
Did you read that
Don't forget too, that process creation is very expensive on windows, .Net sort
of shortcuts this because it is deeply welded into windows.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 09:07:00AM +, Alan wrote:
The majority of the time in this benchmark is spent doing array bounds
checking. If you change it
From: mono-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-
boun...@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Andres G. Aragoneses
Edward, he's not comparing managed vs. unmanaged, but .NET vs Mono.
I made a few comments on managed vs unmanaged, and the bulk of my message was
.Net vs Mono. Read it
On Mar 11, 2013, at 6:04 AM, Ian Norton
ian.norton-bad...@thales-esecurity.com wrote:
Don't forget too, that process creation is very expensive on windows, .Net
sort of shortcuts this because it is deeply welded into windows.
Not really. A process is a process. That's why the .NET team
On 11/03/13 13:21, edward.harvey.mono wrote:
From: mono-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-
boun...@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Andres G. Aragoneses
Edward, he's not comparing managed vs. unmanaged, but .NET vs Mono.
I made a few comments on managed vs unmanaged, and the bulk
[mailto:jonc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 6:33 PM
To: Olajos, Imre
Cc: mono-list@lists.ximian.com
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
Did you explicitly build the mono runtime with support for LLVM?
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 8:38 PM, imreolajos
iola
for even a simple case like the one I presented in the
sample program.
--
Imre
-Original Message-
From: edward.harvey.mono [mailto:edward.harvey.m...@clevertrove.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 7:20 AM
To: Olajos, Imre; mono-list@lists.ximian.com
Subject: RE: [Mono-list] Poor Mono
I
thought turns off array bounds checking, too.
--
Imre
-Original Message-
From: Alan [mailto:alan.mcgov...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:07 AM
To: Ian Norton
Cc: edward.harvey.mono; mono-list@lists.ximian.com; Olajos, Imre
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
?...)
** **
--
*Imre*
** **
*From:* Jonathan Chambers [mailto:jonc...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Saturday, March 09, 2013 6:33 PM
*To:* Olajos, Imre
*Cc:* mono-list@lists.ximian.com
*Subject:* Re: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
** **
Did you explicitly build the mono runtime
Nope, I get no errors whatsoever.
--
Imre
From: Jonathan Chambers [mailto:jonc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:31 AM
To: Olajos, Imre
Cc: mono-list@lists.ximian.com
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
Imre,
Mono can load llvm dynamically, and if it fails to do so
with -O=unsafe option = 0.882 sec
--
Imre
-Original Message-
From: Olajos, Imre
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:19 AM
To: mono-list@lists.ximian.com
Subject: RE: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
Alan,
This is NOT just a benchmark - my actual code looks similar to this, except it
does a lot
is still 80-90%:
Windows .NET = 0.479 sec
Mono 3.0.6 with -O=unsafe option = 0.882 sec
--
Imre
-Original Message-
From: Olajos, Imre
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:19 AM
To: mono-list@lists.ximian.com
Subject: RE: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
Alan,
This is NOT just a benchmark
: RE: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
From: mono-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-
boun...@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of imreolajos
Hi all!
SpeedTest.cs
http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/file/n4658877/SpeedTest.cs
Did you read that code? All it does is a bunch
, Olajos, Imre wrote:
Nope, I get no errors whatsoever.
--
*Imre*
*From:*Jonathan Chambers [mailto:jonc...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, March 11, 2013 9:31 AM
*To:* Olajos, Imre
*Cc:* mono-list@lists.ximian.com
*Subject:* Re: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
Imre,
Mono can load llvm dynamically
On 11.03.2013 17:19, Olajos, Imre wrote:
Is there anything I can do that would bring their relative
performance difference closer to each other (e.g. below 20-25%)?
So you didn't find the well-hidden --make-me-as-fast-as-ms
switch, did you? :)
You're comparing MS' 64-bit runtime with a 32-bit
...@lists.ximian.com
[mono-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Robert Jordan
[robe...@gmx.net]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:15 PM
To: Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Poor Mono performance
On 11.03.2013 17:19, Olajos, Imre wrote:
Is there anything I can do that would bring
Edward, he's not comparing managed vs. unmanaged, but .NET vs Mono.
On 10/03/13 14:19, edward.harvey.mono wrote:
From: mono-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-
boun...@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of imreolajos
Hi all!
SpeedTest.cs
Did you explicitly build the mono runtime with support for LLVM?
Thanks,
Jonathan
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 8:38 PM, imreolajos iola...@ballytech.com wrote:
I ran the code through Mono without the --llvm option - made NO difference
whatsoever. It still runs 2x slower with Mono.
--
View
AFAIR, llvm has bad startup performance but is better than non-LLVM
after startup. So a speed test that is so short is always going to give
bad results.
On 08/03/13 23:51, imreolajos wrote:
Hi all!
SpeedTest.cs http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/file/n4658877/SpeedTest.cs
I compile this
I ran the code through Mono without the --llvm option - made NO difference
whatsoever. It still runs 2x slower with Mono.
--
View this message in context:
http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/Poor-Mono-performance-tp4658877p4658881.html
Sent from the Mono - General mailing list archive at
28 matches
Mail list logo
