<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CC0ECCFF-BB2D-443F-A68F-53449F256857@freudenbergs.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 28.04.2011, at 17:52, Ben Coman wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-performance/">http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-performance/</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-flavour-performance/">http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/03/morphic-flavour-performance/</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/04/performance-testing-spreadsheet/">http://blog.openinworld.com/2011/04/performance-testing-spreadsheet/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Nice work. However, the VM (Interpreter or Cog) is independent of the image (Squeak / Cuis / Pharo). To get comparable results you should run either image on both VMs (or, since you just care about performance, use Cog for all three).
- Bert -
</pre>
</blockquote>
Thanks Bert. I only used the All-In-One-Click packages and am not
familiar with how mix & match VMs and images. It is not something
I have looked into yet and a pointer to to some information on that
would be useful. Also, Cog seemed to be only newly arrived for Squeak
and I didn't want to hit complications. I was hoping it was fair to
compare Squeak-Plain with Pharo-Plain and them to Pharo-Cog.<br>
<br>
To a comment on the morphic-flavour-performance post I have attached a
graph of Levente's results for CogVM with recent images.<br>
</body>
</html>