Den 26/04/2012 kl. 22.30 skrev Chris Rees: > On 26 April 2012 20:15, Matthew Seaman <m.seaman_at_infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote: >> On 26/04/2012 20:01, Chris Rees wrote: >>> hydra# cd /usr/ports && time make MAKE=~crees/bin/make-static index >>> >>> Generating INDEX-9 - please wait.. Done. >>> 729.770u 120.841s 7:45.10 182.8% 920+2676k 5251+116484io 7750pf+0w >>> >>> hydra# time make MAKE=~crees/bin/make-dynamic index >>> >>> Generating INDEX-9 - please wait.. Done. >>> 771.320u 133.540s 8:07.83 185.4% 609+2918k 474+116484io 570pf+0w >>> >>> We have a 10% slowdown (or 11% speedup, depending on your figures) when >>> using a dynamically loaded make. >> >> I don't think you can validly conclude much from just one sample of each >> type. Try repeating those tests enough that you can do some decent >> statistics. >> >> Oh, and you should probably either discard the first few results, or >> else take pains to flush[*] the buffer cache between each run, so you >> end up measuring the same thing repeatably. > > Had I done the tests the other way around, I may agree with you, but > the second test should benefit from any buffering, and it is *still* > slower. > > Look, I know it's not a perfect benchmark, it was just some food for > thought-- a difference of 10% is pretty significant, and I don't think > you can blame that on a solar flare. Can anyone explain to me why the dynamically linked version is significantly slower? What are the extra steps involved compared to a statically linked binary? Thanks, ErikReceived on Mon Apr 30 2012 - 11:51:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:26 UTC