Fwd: forwarded message from Christian Tismer (fwd)

[Thomas Lindgren]

--- Bijan Parsia <bparsia@REDACTED> wrote:

> Is Erlang up to this challenge?
> 
> [[[Let me simply end this pamphlete with some simple
> sentences:
> Stackless Python is more capable of tasklets
> switching than any
> other light-weight threading software package.
> If anyone disagrees, please give me a runnable
> counter-example.]]]

Results at the end. First some comments.

1. The benchmark itself seems kinda meaningless for a
claim of being a fast thread package. Where is the IPC
cost? The scheduling cost? The process creation cost?
etc, etc. (Not to mention realistic conditions ... :-)

2. What was the system being measured? 20 million is
sort of a meaningless number without knowing that.

3. What was the benchmarking methodology? Is it an
average? A "best of N runs"? What?

My system was this: RedHat 8.x Athlon 1300+ with 512
MB of slow memory running out-of-the-box Erlang R9B1.
(system cost $400) 

The program (csw.erl) consists of two processes that
yield N times each. The completion time is the
difference between earliest start time and latest stop
time.

Result: csw did AT BEST 6.4 million Erlang context
switches per second, and ON AVERAGE 5.8-5.9 million
Erlang context switches per second, over a range of
parameters (100k-10m context switches per benchmark
run).

Best,
Thomas

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: csw.erl
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2406 bytes
Desc: csw.erl
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20030418/5586e820/attachment.obj>