Because the average ms calculation is rounded, it's not apparent that
the incremental GC actually runs 25% faster unless you do the math.

On Tuesday, December 31, 2002, at 01:40  AM, Marcus Denker wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 12:27:19AM -0800, John M McIntosh wrote:
>> This change set provides a 18 - 28% improvement in the GC logic using
>> an test image that has 1.1 million objects in it on the PowerPC.
>
> Here's a macroBenchmark (on a G3-400 Powerbook):
>
> normal VM:       #(23176 165464 71470 26862  0 23717 14090)
> with GC changes: #(22306 154462 67454 24451  0 21615 14134)
> app. %faster       %3.9 %7.1    %5.9  %9.8     %9.7     0%
>
>
> Benchmark #2 triggers 10 full collections, it shows nicely how
> much faster the GC got:
>
> Benchmark #2: 165464ms
> ---------------------
> 	uptime		165.5s
> 	full			10 totalling 5,920ms (4.0% uptime), avg 592.0ms
> 	incr		15932 totalling 33,728ms (20.0% uptime), avg 2.0ms
> 	tenures		1,550 (avg 10 GCs/tenure)
>
> Benchmark #2: 154462ms
> ---------------------
> 	uptime		154.5s
> 	full			10 totalling 4,781ms (3.0% uptime), avg 478.0ms
> 	incr		16036 totalling 25,407ms (16.0% uptime), avg 2.0ms
> 	tenures		1,554 (avg 10 GCs/tenure)
>
>
>
> --  
> Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de  -- Squeak! http://squeak.de
>
>
>
>
--
======================================================================== 
===
John M. McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
======================================================================== 
===