> On 30 Jun 2015, at 19:42, Peter Uhnák <i.uh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Debian (host) "'4,855 per second'" > > Ubuntu (vbox) "'4,709 per second'" > > Win XP (vbox) "'504.099 per second'" > > The difference here is just one order of magnitude and not two... so maybe I > should take apart CompileMethod>>putSource:inFile:withPreambule statement by > statement. > > Is there some more convenient way to do it than wrap each statement in a > block? Some way to profile a method or something.
Open the Time Profiler and write your expression there is how you do analysis on the whole tree. It is not perfect but should help you find the bottleneck. > Peter > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > > > On 30 Jun 2015, at 18:36, Peter Uhnák <i.uh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I think we've safely established that the bottleneck is disk operations. > > Let's take it one level down then, > > [ 'foo.txt' asFileReference in: [ :file | > file writeStreamDo: [ :out | > 3 timesRepeat: [ out << String loremIpsum ] ]. > file ensureDelete ] ] bench > > => "'512.595 per second'" > > We could experiment with variants, calling #flush, writing by character, > adding buffering, etc, but this is a start. At least this takes the source > code stuff out of the equations. > > > Quoting from previous emails... > > > > store := [ > > method putSource: code inFile: 2 > > withPreamble: [:f | f cr; nextPut: $!; nextChunkPut: > > 'Behavior method'; cr]. > > ]. > > > > machine 1: > > Debian 64bit (laptop) > > store bench. 41604 per second > > > > Windows XP 32bit (virtualbox; host Debian) > > store bench. 286 per second > > > > Ubuntu 32bit (virtualbox; host Debian) > > store bench. 36604 per second > > > > machine 2: > > Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (desktop pc) > > store bench. 13 per second > > > > machine 3: > > Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (laptop) > > store bench. 454 per second > > > > all disks are HDD. > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck > > <marianop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, p...@highoctane.be <p...@highoctane.be> > > wrote: > > Silly question: do you have a couple of Nautilus windows open? > > > > Loading stuff generates annoucements and Nautilus updates are killing > > performance. > > > > > > And previously TestRunner too (don;t know now) > > > > Phil > > > > Le 30 juin 2015 00:36, "Jan Blizničenko" <blizn...@fit.cvut.cz> a écrit : > > And one another benchmark of linux in VM on that desktop PC: > > Roassal loading - 58 s > > compilations per second - avg: 262.4682, min: 257.194, max: 289.684 > > ...so the desktop PC is capable of better result and problem is somewhere in > > Windows, which I was afraid of... > > > > I'd also like to add to previous Windows tests that with antivirus turned on > > everything takes more time approximately by half of original time. > > > > Jan > > > > > > Jan Blizničenko wrote > > > Desktop: 386 s. > > > Notebook: 48 s. > > > Linux in VM on notebook: 27 s. > > > > > > > > > Notebook: compilations per second - avg: 217.7153, min: 5.0, max: 247.258 > > > Desktop: compilations per second - avg: 23.1337, min: 19.448, max: 28.155 > > > Linux in VM on notebook: compilations per second - avg: 529.0066600000001, > > > min: 5.0, max: 573.97 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > http://forum.world.st/Slow-compilation-on-one-of-my-Windows-PCs-tp4834668p4834713.html > > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mariano > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > >
