[Newbies] RE: Why Squeak is so sloooow?
milan.zimmermann at sympatico.ca
Thu Sep 21 18:53:16 UTC 2006
On 2006 September 21 11:55, David Shaffer wrote:
> You're certainly right Brad but let me add that the Squeak 3.9 image is
> unbearably slow on my linux-based laptop (2Ghz Pentium 4M, 1Gb RAM).
> I've even tried VM's from 3.8 to Ian's recent 3.9 release. It is too
> slow for simple window operations and causes a gastly amount of CPU
> utilization even under lite GUI use.
This is suprising, on my:
- old Athlon 2400
- VM Squeak3.9alpha of 4 July 2005 [latest update: #7021],
- latest 3.9 gama 7058 image
I was just recently thinking "this is best speed I have seen since 3.7". When
doing simple windows operations (moving around, resizing etc) top reports
below 30%, always for a very brief period when doing the work (typically
Yoshiki's test (higlight, alt-p)
| a b |
a := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
b := FloatArray new: (16 * 1024*1024).
[a += b] timeToRun.
I do not know how to run any "oficial" graphical tests, but with
MathMorphRevival installed ( plug :) ) , time for creating 60 graphs it takes
17 seconds, usage around 80%, never above 85% (ok my top sampling 5s), goes
down to almost 0% after the UI work is done.
David or Antonio, if you would like to compare:
1 to: 10 do: [ :i |
XYPlotter example1 plot asMorph openInWorld.
XYPlotter example2 plot asMorph openInWorld.
XYPlotter example3 plot asMorph openInWorld.
XYPlotter example4 plot asMorph openInWorld.
XYPlotter example5 plot asMorph openInWorld.
XYPlotter example6 plot asMorph openInWorld.
===> RESULT 17295 (hardware as above)
> Antonio might be reflecting on
> this same perception of slowness and frankly I'm sure that any amount of
> "proper scientific testing" is going to reveal that it feels like
> walking though mud ;-)
> Anyway I'm still using a 3.7 image for development. Nice and snappy.
> Beginners mailing list
> Beginners at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the Beginners