[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 11:45 AM, Stas Boukarev <stassats at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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,
>
> whatever you call it :-)
>
>> otherwise timing would be hard. But you will get the same numbers when
>> you first start ECL or SBCL.
>
> Imagine a multi-user environment -- which isn't uncommon, even these
> days where many people have their own laptops.
>
> dromion[11:48]% ls -ld /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2010-06-05 11:48 /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
>
>
> The point is: not everybody gets the luxury with fiddling with the system.
> And good ECL performance should not require that.
Let me repeat. You don't need to fiddle with anything. I flushed caches
so that I can measure time as if it were the first start, but without it
actually being the first.

-- 
With Best Regards, Stas.