Franco Fiorese wrote:
* Windows XP Pro: 16566.7 pystones/second
* Linux (kernel 2.6.9 NPTL): 12346.2 pystones/second
First of all, realise that pystone is not meant to be a general-purpose
benchmarking program. It test a specific, *small* subset of the
functionality available in Python.
Franco Fiorese [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Windows XP Pro: 16566.7 pystones/second
* Linux (kernel 2.6.9 NPTL): 12346.2 pystones/second
I have repeated the test, on Linux, also with other distributions and
kernel but a relevant difference still exists with Windows offering a
better
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Franco Fiorese [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Windows XP Pro: 16566.7 pystones/second
* Linux (kernel 2.6.9 NPTL): 12346.2 pystones/second
I have repeated the test, on Linux, also with other distributions and
kernel but a relevant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
...or (just as hypothetically) purchasing some commercial compiler might
help, under the assumption that the optimization and code generation of
the compiler are the issues here. I have nothing but hearsay to go on,
but IBM's compiler for PPC chips,
Franco Fiorese wrote:
Is there any way, that you know, to get better performance under
Linux?
Build Python yourself, using relevant CFLAGS and TARGET for your
processor?
I've always noticed that Windows Python takes a lot longer to startup
than Linux, but never really looked at runtime
Franco Fiorese wrote:
I am relatively new about Python benchmarks.
After some experiments I found that Python on my PC Windows XP has a relevant
higher performance
than on Linux. The simple test using pystone.py shows this:
* Windows XP Pro: 16566.7 pystones/second
* Linux (kernel
