From: Wilson Bilkovich <wilsonb@...>
Date: 2006-03-27T05:04:18+09:00
Subject: Re: Speed issue on Windows

Try running the built-in sample "cal.rb" with ruby -rprofile.
I don't have two identical boxes right next to each other right now, but:
WinXP SP2, dual Xeon 2.8GHz, 2GB of RAM: 5.031 seconds.
Ubuntu 5.10, single P4 3.0GHz, 1GB of RAM: 2.110 seconds.

Obviously the hardware isn't the same, but they should be much, much
closer than that.
cal.rb is a good choice (in my opinion) because it creates and
compares a very large number of Rational and Fixnum objects.

On 3/26/06, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:
> P.S.: I have a P4/1 GB/SATA disk workstation that's dual-booted Gentoo
> Linux and XP Professional, and I've got CygWin on the Windows side. If
> there are some reasonable benchmarks in Ruby, I could run them with the
> CygWin Ruby (1.8.4 IIRC), Curt Hibbs' One Click and the stock Gentoo
> Ruby (compiled with gcc 3.4 and optimized O3 with march=pentium4). To
> keep things fair, I'll stick to processor-bound benchmarks; I'm not sure
> it's valid to compare NTFS with ext2 filesystems.
>
> Anybody here have any favorite Ruby benchmarks? In the absence of any
> other ideas, I'll probably do a 100x100 matrix factorization using the
> standard Matrix/Mathn/Rational/Complex packages. That should give the
> interpreter a pretty good workout.
>
> Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
> > On 3/25/06, rtilley <rtilley@vt.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Larry Kelly wrote:
> >>
> >>> What progress is being made to improve Ruby's speed on Windows
> >>> platforms.  I'm finding much slower on Windows, especially Windows 2003
> >>> Server.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> How are you using Ruby? I find its performance acceptable on XP and
> >> 2003. I use both Python and Ruby for many common systems administration
> >> and automation tasks. IMO, Python and Ruby perform about the same. In
> >> some areas, Ruby is faster... I've found this to be especially true when
> >> working with WMI.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I've found Ruby IO and database connectivity to be significantly
> > slower on Windows (identical and near-identical hardware) than on
> > Linux.  Even IRB takes a noticeably longer time to reach a usable
> > state.  A particularly nasty test is timing a script using ruby
> > -rprofile.  The profiling overhead seems to be much greater in
> > Windows, which points at some kind of underlying problem.
> > Sadly, I don't know enough about instrumenting compiled code to point
> > at the problem.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
>
> http://linuxcapacityplanning.com
>
>
>