From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: dhruva Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general Subject: Re: Emacs repository benchmark: bzr and git Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:03:46 +0530 Message-ID: References: <20080318154316.GA6242@mithlond.arda.local> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205858069 5549 80.91.229.12 (18 Mar 2008 16:34:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:34:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bazaar@lists.canonical.com, Teemu Likonen , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Matthieu Moy" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 18 17:34:48 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Jbelj-00007Q-E9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:34:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbel9-0005YH-TS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:33:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbel6-0005Y8-Km for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:33:52 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbel4-0005Xb-Sm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:33:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jbel4-0005XY-N1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:33:50 -0400 Original-Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.142.189]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jbel3-0000He-2i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:33:50 -0400 Original-Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a20so2000124tia.10 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:33:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=muMg+rod0EraRvUyKysA/lb3Wf09BL6bVATG2w8DPvs=; b=Pt9EJhTefAuWSVzNDdhGW+qLrQImXZuIY6z4gzC9IRhUYcv+zArK4vk6Livoofi1Jq3C86k1m87Fhu+ZwIPQWe3aEYs8u8L2CQmJ6fOrnwaaHOhIxQpdSkiZNJ2O7CbzLPKu22r+qHO99K/pW1IJnZjD1cjVJRNAfHdsJWysw1Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=exoutZtJjvd7znda7k0jAPA5/o0t2X5gZ6Ue7IFjASNMKxqrcVGByN2cDoePoEgio5pAMpSyf13v9pLw6Nuv261tmOpyVWH8hl4olkjKQ+q6OHmFz80U7wpNq3MTIg1hyC0W1uz0aje0oEocCMh1fsCF0D0aFqk2GebIO4d7jpI= Original-Received: by 10.110.92.8 with SMTP id p8mr336733tib.23.1205858026539; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:33:46 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.110.3.13 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:33:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:92897 gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general:38924 Archived-At: Hi, On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Teemu Likonen writes: > > > I just measured with 'time' command how long it takes to run certain > > commands. > > Interesting benchmark, but what's missing is whether this is with hot > or cold cache. For example: > > > > $ time bzr log >/dev/null > > real 3m15.708s > > I get a bit less than a minute here, and I don't think my machine is > 4x faster than yours, so this was probably with cold cache. > > An interesting measure is "best of 3" (run it 3 times, and take the > smallest). > dhruva@dhruva-lxp ~/stub/repo/bzr/emacs/trunk $ time bzr log -l 10 > :NUL real 0m30.562s user 0m0.015s sys 0m0.000s dhruva@dhruva-lxp ~/stub/repo/bzr/emacs/trunk $ time bzr log -l 10 > :NUL real 0m34.250s user 0m0.015s sys 0m0.015s dhruva@dhruva-lxp ~/stub/repo/bzr/emacs/trunk $ time bzr log -l 10 > :NUL real 0m33.391s user 0m0.015s sys 0m0.000s dhruva@dhruva-lxp ~/stub/repo/bzr/emacs/trunk $ time bzr log -l 10 --short > :NUL real 0m19.828s user 0m0.015s sys 0m0.015s dhruva@dhruva-lxp ~/stub/repo/bzr/emacs/trunk $ time bzr log -l 10 --short > :NUL real 0m19.390s user 0m0.015s sys 0m0.000s dhruva@dhruva-lxp ~/stub/repo/bzr/emacs/trunk $ time bzr log -l 10 --short > :NUL real 0m18.421s user 0m0.047s sys 0m0.031s dhruva@dhruva-lxp ~/stub/repo/bzr/emacs/trunk $ time bzr log -l 10 --short > :NUL real 0m18.375s user 0m0.015s sys 0m0.000s Even with 3 runs, I do not see any noticeable change in performance. I am running the tests on emacs repo. I am running all tests on M$-XP box (lenovo T61 series with Intel Centrino Pro, 1Gb RAM). How do I get rid of cache if I have to restart the tests? I plan to analyze the '--lsprof' output to see if there is different code path and the so called hot/cold cache making any difference. -dhruva -- Contents reflect my personal views only!