VM/Settings for Deploy
Locked
 
|
Hi,
I am very happy that I managed to create a very small deploy image based on Pharo-1.1-11400-rc2. This image contains all of Seaside and Glorp/PostgreSQL and is still only about 12Mb. All this thanks to ScriptLoader's #cleanUpForProduction. Thanks a lot to all who made this possible. I noticed however that this image is handling my HTTP/Seaside benchmark consistenly faster on my Mac, about 80 to 85 req/s (Mac OS X 10.6.4, 2.4 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM) than on my server (RHEL 4 (update 7), 2 Ghz AMD Opteron 175 Dual Core with 4GB RAM), about 55 to 65 req/s. On my Mac I use the Squeak 4.2.4beta1U VM, on my server the Squeak-4.0.3.2202 Unix VM. Next I tried the Squeak-4.0.3.2202 VM on my Mac. This resulted in about 60 to 70 req/s. Is it normal that the Unix VM is slower than the Mac VM ? Shouldn't a Linux server box be faster at networking/IO/CPU than a MacBook Pro running the full Mac OS X GUI ? Is there anything simple (low hanging fruit kind of stuff) that I can do to improve performance, either using command line options to the VM or using settings at the image level ? I currently run the VM with: Squeak-4.0.3.2202-linux_i386/bin/squeak -vm-display-null -vm-sound-null deploy.image What are others using in the Seaside deploy area ? Thanks, Sven _______________________________________________ Pharo-users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users |
Re: VM/Settings for Deploy
|
|
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi, For what I have been experimenting, and with the default configuration, yes. I mean, if you go to the website, download both VMs, and run, I think that yes. Maybe compiling Linux vms with particular flags in the configure, you may have better results. I said this in another thread I people said I was talking bullship, so, I won't talk any more. I let you two links in case you are interested to read: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-apparently-slow-on-linux-td1304643.html#a1304643 http://forum.world.st/Squeak-VM-FT2Plugin-all-Pharo-1-0-rc3-tests-green-tp1692857p1692857.html Shouldn't a Linux server box be faster at networking/IO/CPU than a MacBook Pro running the full Mac OS X GUI ? not necessary. Because you depends on the VM I think.
yes. First the flags when compiling the VM. Check the version of GCC. Then you can check all the parameters of the GC and etc...but I have no idea how to tune this.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users |
|
|
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi, I've struggled on this and finally give up. It seems Linux VM can be better than MacOSX one:
But how is a secret: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-VM-FT2Plugin-all-Pharo-1-0-rc3-tests-green-tp1692857p1695598.html
I will help if you work on building the VM for Linux. Cheers,
_______________________________________________ Pharo-users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users |
Re: VM/Settings for Deploy
|
|
Laurent,
Mariano, Thanks for the reply. I read the various threads you both pointed to. This is not a good situation. A good VM (stable and performant) is absolutely critical to Smalltalk/Squeak/Pharo's success. A 30% speed difference due to some secret compiler settings is very scary for what is essentially an open source project, although I also understand that some people want to get some money back for their efforts. I can't imagine that recompiling the Linux kernel, Apache or PostgreSQL with some secret compiler settings or even another compiler would make so much difference versus the open way (although some minor speedup by tuning compilation to specific hardware is to be expected). I think (and Stef suggested as much since he mentioned buying the Intel C compiler) Pharo needs to deal with this to fullfill its mission of offering a free and open source attractive platform to build and deploy mission critical Smalltalk applications. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable license/support fee if that would benefit the community as a whole at the same time. Sven On 24 Jun 2010, at 10:47, laurent laffont wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi, > > I am very happy that I managed to create a very small deploy image based on Pharo-1.1-11400-rc2. This image contains all of Seaside and Glorp/PostgreSQL and is still only about 12Mb. All this thanks to ScriptLoader's #cleanUpForProduction. > > Thanks a lot to all who made this possible. > > I noticed however that this image is handling my HTTP/Seaside benchmark consistenly faster on my Mac, about 80 to 85 req/s (Mac OS X 10.6.4, 2.4 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM) than on my server (RHEL 4 (update 7), 2 Ghz AMD Opteron 175 Dual Core with 4GB RAM), about 55 to 65 req/s. > > On my Mac I use the Squeak 4.2.4beta1U VM, on my server the Squeak-4.0.3.2202 Unix VM. > > Next I tried the Squeak-4.0.3.2202 VM on my Mac. This resulted in about 60 to 70 req/s. > > Is it normal that the Unix VM is slower than the Mac VM ? > > > Hi, > > I've struggled on this and finally give up. > > It seems Linux VM can be better than MacOSX one: > - http://forum.world.st/Squeak-VM-FT2Plugin-all-Pharo-1-0-rc3-tests-green-tp1692857p1695587.html > - http://forum.world.st/Squeak-VM-FT2Plugin-all-Pharo-1-0-rc3-tests-green-tp1692857p1695629.html > > But how is a secret: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-VM-FT2Plugin-all-Pharo-1-0-rc3-tests-green-tp1692857p1695598.html > > I will help if you work on building the VM for Linux. > > Cheers, > > Laurent Laffont > > http://pharocasts.blogspot.com/ > http://magaloma.blogspot.com/ > > > > > For what I have been experimenting, and with the default configuration, yes. > I mean, if you go to the website, download both VMs, and run, I think that yes. Maybe compiling Linux vms with particular flags in the configure, you may have better results. > > I said this in another thread I people said I was talking bullship, so, I won't talk any more. > > I let you two links in case you are interested to read: > > http://forum.world.st/Pharo-apparently-slow-on-linux-td1304643.html#a1304643 > > http://forum.world.st/Squeak-VM-FT2Plugin-all-Pharo-1-0-rc3-tests-green-tp1692857p1692857.html > > > Shouldn't a Linux server box be faster at networking/IO/CPU than a MacBook Pro running the full Mac OS X GUI ? > > > not necessary. Because you depends on the VM I think. > > > > Is there anything simple (low hanging fruit kind of stuff) that I can do to improve performance, either using command line options to the VM or using settings at the image level ? > > > yes. First the flags when compiling the VM. Check the version of GCC. > Then you can check all the parameters of the GC and etc...but I have no idea how to tune this. > > > I currently run the VM with: > > Squeak-4.0.3.2202-linux_i386/bin/squeak -vm-display-null -vm-sound-null deploy.image > > What are others using in the Seaside deploy area ? > > Thanks, > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-users mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-users mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-users mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users _______________________________________________ Pharo-users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Users
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |