benchmarking

We plan to install a Subversion repository in an environment where the network is quite slow on its own. The previous VCS used there was VSS, and it was a nightmare to use it (not only because of its "feature"). So, my question is the choice between Svnserve and the apache module. I know that the apache module will be slower due to the stateless protocol, but I've no idea how much is the increase of the time it implies. Is there somewhere some benchmarks or rules that indicate the average difference of speed between the two servers? Martijn Laarman Taken from this resource , In most cases, if

My ultimate goal is to create a comprehensive set of benchmarks for several Java primitive collection libraries using the standard Java collections as a baseline. In the past I have used the looping method of writing these kinds of micro-benchmarks. I put the function I am benchmarking in a loop and iterate 1 million+ times so the jit has a chance to warmup. I take the total time of the loop and then divide by the number of iterations to get an estimate for the amount of time a single call to the function I am benchmarking would take. After recently reading about the JMH project and

A student and I are building a new family of interpreters, which we would like to benchmark against existing interpreters. We would love to download a tarball or zip file containing all the source codes used in the Computer Language Benchmarks Game . I've downloaded the zip file from the project page , but it contains only some infrastructure which does not work on Debian lenny, and Python source code for just 2 benchmarks. All the other source code is MIA. Another problem is that the interactive dropdown menu seems to show Java source no matter what language is asked for. Not that I want to

what's the procedure I should follow to run a simple test on a domain www.example.com?I'm on windows environment and have installed WAMP server 2.1. I actually know wich command I should use (Ex. ab -n 1 http://www.example.com/ ) but dont know where I should type it. thanks for your patience I don't know the path WampServer is installed to, so I'll just show you how I do it under WampDeveloper (which is what I use). Run cmd.exe. Inside... C: cd \WampDeveloper\Components\Apache\bin ab -n 1 http://www.example.com/ To answer your question, you type it in the command line changed to the bin folder

I'm coming from C and I wonder whether Rust's bounds checking affects performance. It probably needs some additional assembly instructions for every access, which could hurt when processing lots of data. On the other hand, the costly thing in processor performance is memory, so more arithmetic assembler instructions might not hurt, but then it might matter that after a cache line is loaded, sequential access should be very fast. Has somebody benchmarked this? Unfortunately, the cost of a bounds check is not a straightforward thing to estimate. It's certainly not "one cycle per check", or any

I have a piece of code that runs 2x faster on windows than on linux. Here are the times I measured: g++ -Ofast -march=native -m64 29.1123 g++ -Ofast -march=native 29.0497 clang++ -Ofast -march=native 28.9192 visual studio 2013 Debug 32b 13.8802 visual studio 2013 Release 32b 12.5569 It really seems to be too huge a difference. Here is the code: #include <iostream> #include <map> #include <chrono> static std::size_t Count = 1000; static std::size_t MaxNum = 50000000; bool IsPrime(std::size_t num) { for (std::size_t i = 2; i < num; i++) { if (num % i == 0) return false; } return true; } int main

Look at this code: one.cpp: bool test(int a, int b, int c, int d); int main() { volatile int va = 1; volatile int vb = 2; volatile int vc = 3; volatile int vd = 4; int a = va; int b = vb; int c = vc; int d = vd; int s = 0; __asm__("nop"); __asm__("nop"); __asm__("nop"); __asm__("nop"); __asm__("nop"); __asm__("nop"); __asm__("nop"); __asm__("nop"); __asm__("nop"); __asm__("nop"); __asm__("nop"); __asm__("nop"); __asm__("nop"); __asm__("nop"); __asm__("nop"); __asm__("nop"); for (int i=0; i<2000000000; i++) { s += test(a, b, c, d); } return s; } two.cpp: bool test(int a, int b, int c, int d) {

Solution: Apparently the culprit was the use of floor() , the performance of which turns out to be OS-dependent in glibc. This is a followup question to an earlier one: Same program faster on Linux than Windows -- why? I have a small C++ program, that, when compiled with nuwen gcc 4.6.1 , runs much faster on Wine than Windows XP (on the same computer). The question: why does this happen? The timings are ~15.8 and 25.9 seconds, for Wine and Windows respectively. Note that I'm talking about the same executable , not only the same C++ program. The source code is at the end of the post. The