[Ecls-list] About the myth of slow starting
stassats at gmail.com
Sat Jun 5 16:45:09 UTC 2010
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.
More information about the ecl-devel