[Ecls-list] About the myth of slow starting

[Stas Boukarev]

Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions.net> writes:

> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
> <juanjose.garciaripoll at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Stas Boukarev <stassats at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > https://sourceforge.net/news/?group_id=30035&id=287636
>>> SBCL has quite a large core, so unless it's cached by FS loading it
>>> isn't so fast.
>>> With caches dropped (echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches) ECL is actually
>>>  faster than SBCL at start.
>>
>> Indeed, this is normally my experience in OS X, but I did not want to offer
>> the "best" or "biased" numbers. Instead I just took a system where SBCL has
>> to perform well (Linux) and ECL does not do so bad.
>
> I agree with that:  many interested ECL users do not have the luxury of fiddling
> around with the kernel parameters.  So, the normal conditions of good ECL
> performance should not require that -- and I applaud that view.
That's not a kernel parameter, that's just a way to flush caches,
otherwise timing would be hard. But you will get the same numbers when
you first start ECL or SBCL.

-- 
With Best Regards, Stas.