The test is only an example. The data is an example too. The difference is
not the problem, I think, because we can make the data larger and the
difference will grow.
In my system, the original test points to Windows having the best time, and
points to difference larger than 10% between linux gener
Hi Zeljko,
Zeljko Vrba wrote:
Windows 32bit results:
user system elapsed
21.660.02 21.69
Linux 64bit Results
user system elapsed
27.242 0.004 27.275
Using wall-clock time metric is not "two different ways" of timing. He could
have just as well measured the time using stop-wat
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:20:17AM +0900, Raymond Wan wrote:
>
> I. Soumpasis wrote:
> >2009/6/29 C騷ar Freitas
> >This is true. So I tried the same computer with windows XP and ubuntu 8.10
> >64bit dual core @3Gz and 4MB RAM
> >Windows 32bit results:
> > user system elapsed
> > 21.660.02
Hi,
I. Soumpasis wrote:
2009/6/29 C騷ar Freitas
This is true. So I tried the same computer with windows XP and ubuntu 8.10
64bit dual core @3Gz and 4MB RAM
Windows 32bit results:
user system elapsed
21.660.02 21.69
Linux 64bit Results
user system elapsed
27.242 0.004 27.275
2009/6/29 Cézar Freitas
> Hi, Ilias. I think that is not ok to compare performance in different
> plataforms of different machines. To compare times, is necessary you execute
> the code at the two plataforms (Linux and Windows) in the same machine.
> But the problem here is other. The advanced us
--- Em seg, 29/6/09, I. Soumpasis escreveu:
De: I. Soumpasis
Assunto: Re: [R] (performance) time in Windows vs Linux
Para: "Cézar Freitas"
Data: Segunda-feira, 29 de Junho de 2009, 5:53
Hi Cezar,
I tried your code in a core duo laptop (@2.5Gz) with ubuntu x86_64 with 4GB of
R
ask them:
Is it possible build the R (under Linux) and force the compilation make it in
32 bits (at a 64 bits machine)?
Thanks to all,
Cezar Freitas
--- Em seg, 29/6/09, I. Soumpasis escreveu:
De: I. Soumpasis
Assunto: Re: [R] (performance) time in Windows vs Linux
Para: "Cézar Fr
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
I meant to write "not so for 'top'" in the final para.
Ah, I'm not certain enough to know that "htop" works for threads as
well...so I was quick to jump to agreeing with you. :-) I only know it
works for multi-cores...
Ray
___
I meant to write "not so for 'top'" in the final para.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Raymond Wan wrote:
milton ruser wrote:
In fact I have a quadcore. But how can I know if Linux are really using
only one core, and how can I setup it to use the 4cores?
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 19:21 +1200, Patrick Connolly wrote:
> On Mon, 29-Jun-2009 at 09:05AM +0200, Zeljko Vrba wrote:
>
> |> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 06:56:55PM +1200, Patrick Connolly wrote:
> |> > On Mon, 29-Jun-2009 at 02:13AM -0400, milton ruser wrote:
> |> >
> |> > |> Really?
> |> > |>
> |>
Hi Brian,
Thank you for the clarification -- the first part does set the record
straight about what I thought about R. I would expect a program to run
on a single core by default unless something specifically (and somewhat
non-trivial) was done to it.
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
If you want
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Raymond Wan wrote:
milton ruser wrote:
In fact I have a quadcore. But how can I know if Linux are really
using only one core, and how can I setup it to use the 4cores?
I don't know the answer in the context of R -- I didn't know that R can use
multiple cores by default
On Mon, 29-Jun-2009 at 09:05AM +0200, Zeljko Vrba wrote:
|> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 06:56:55PM +1200, Patrick Connolly wrote:
|> > On Mon, 29-Jun-2009 at 02:13AM -0400, milton ruser wrote:
|> >
|> > |> Really?
|> > |>
|> > |> In fact I have a quadcore. But how can I know if Linux are really
|> >
Hi,
milton ruser wrote:
In fact I have a quadcore. But how can I know if Linux are really using only
one core, and how can I setup it to use the 4cores?
I don't know the answer in the context of R -- I didn't know that R can
use multiple cores by default? But in general, I use "htop", who
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 06:56:55PM +1200, Patrick Connolly wrote:
> On Mon, 29-Jun-2009 at 02:13AM -0400, milton ruser wrote:
>
> |> Really?
> |>
> |> In fact I have a quadcore. But how can I know if Linux are really
> |> using only one core, and how can I setup it to use the 4cores?
>
> I use G
On Mon, 29-Jun-2009 at 02:13AM -0400, milton ruser wrote:
|> Really?
|>
|> In fact I have a quadcore. But how can I know if Linux are really
|> using only one core, and how can I setup it to use the 4cores?
I use GKrellM (install with "aptitude install gkrellm" if you don't
have it already). It
Really?
In fact I have a quadcore. But how can I know if Linux are really using only
one core, and how can I setup it to use the 4cores?
Thanks a lot,
milton
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Patrick Connolly <
p_conno...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
> On Fri, 26-Jun-2009 at 04:37PM -0400, milton ru
On Fri, 26-Jun-2009 at 04:37PM -0400, milton ruser wrote:
|> Hi there,
|>
|> I have both systems on a DELL 64bit machine.
|> I compiled R 2.9.0 on both systems, to get 64bits capability.
|> Surpriselly, on Linux (Ubuntu with I installed 3 month ago) I spent
|> 41s to run the same test you did,
Yes, under 64-bit it is sometimes slower and it highly depends on the
problem and the compiler you have. Note also that nobody managed to get
a 64-bit Windows R binary compiled with gcc so far.
Remember, 10 years ago there was the SUN Ultra Sparc III and above
architecture, and gcc was known to
Hi there,
I have both systems on a DELL 64bit machine.
I compiled R 2.9.0 on both systems, to get 64bits capability.
Surpriselly, on Linux (Ubuntu with I installed 3 month ago) I spent 41s to
run the same test you did, and less time (35s) under Vista. In fact I had
noticed that I not have gained t
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:23:35PM -0700, Cézar Freitas wrote:
>
> I supposed R on Linux should be faster (32 and 64 bit) than windows version.
> Is this difference because 64 bit R version is slower than 32 bits one? I
> started the machine in both sittuations and checked free memory.
>
I susp
Hi, all.
I began to migrate my R codes from Windows to Linux and surprised me
with an old question. I simplified the problem and made a little test to
compare times at same
computer and the Linux time is worse (not so little) than Windows time:
28 vs 53 seconds.
I make an example (below) to faci
22 matches
Mail list logo
