On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Marcel Weiher wrote:

>
> On Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at 12:37 AM, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> >>> We *know* that increasing these parameters makes macroBenchmarks go
> >>> faster.
> >>
> >> We *really* do?
> >
> > Yep.. Try increasing them, giving squeak a couple hundred megs of RAM,
> > and
> > running macrobenchmarks.
>
>
> Well, I just tried it for the VM parameter 4, and setting that to 40000
> was actually measurably *slower* than setting it at 4000 (135s vs.
> 130s).  The numbers of incremental GCs were typically around a factor of
> 10 lower, and the time devoted to incremental GCs also significantly
> lower, but the total running time of each of the individual benchmarks
> increased.

Strange.. As #4 is a read-only parameter. (See source for vmParameterAt:)

Methinks you're seeing measurement noise.

>
> Also setting vmParameter 5 to 12000 (in addition to vmParameter 4 to
> 40000) further slows down the macro-benchmarks, to 148 seconds.

Methinks you're seeing measurement noise.


Also, macrobenchmarks allocates all but 10mb before benchmarking, remove
that code. And, optionally, remove the GC's it does between the seperate
benchmarks)


Then try setting
  #5 to 800k
  #6 to  12k

Note that these numbers are reset on each image startup.

Then rebenchmark.


Scott