On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:00:33 +0900, Rick Nooner <rick / nooner.net>
wrote:

>Yesterday at work we took an analysis program written in ruby that we had been
>running on a Solaris box (Sunblade 1500, 1 Gig RAM, 1.5 Ghz Sparc) and moved
>it to a windows box (HP D530, 1 Gig RAM, 2.8 Ghz Pentium) to do performance
>comparisons.
>
>The analysis builds a profile in memory of over 3.6 GB of data on disk.  On
>the Solaris box, it takes about 35 mins and uses about 700 MB of RAM.  It
>would not complete on the windows box using the full data set, bombing with
>"failed to allocate memory (NoMemoryError)".  There was nearly 800 MB of
>RAM free on the windows box as well as having a 4 Gig swap available.
>
>Is windows that inefficient with memory allocation or is this a ruby
>implementation issue on windows?
>
>Before anyone asks, I would have done the comparison on a linux box if I
>had one available since what I really wanted to know was the speed boost
>that a Intel processor would give me.  I didn't have one readly available,
>though.
>
Look around for a Live CD distribution like Knoppix. But find one
without ruby. Set aside a partition for Linux ( it can be Fat32 )
mount the partition somewhere and install ruby ( you DON'T want
ruby running of the CD for benchmarks even hand waiving ones ).
The hard part will be finding a Live CD without ruby.

It's been a while, but I seem to remember that Intel CPUs make memory
management for things like GC much harder, so it would be a good idea
to compare OSs running on the same CPU. If not maybe you can scrounge
an Alpha running NT and see if you get any different results on it.


The reply-to email address is olczyk2002 / yahoo.com.
This is an address I ignore.
To reply via email, remove 2002 and change yahoo to
interaccess,

**
Thaddeus L. Olczyk, PhD

There is a difference between
*thinking* you know something,
and *knowing* you know something.