[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: varnish-dev
Subject: SmartOS: VTIM_real vs VTIM_mono / double vs uint64_t
From: Nils Goroll <slink () schokola ! de>
Date: 2016-04-07 8:16:26
Message-ID: 5706175A.9010808 () schokola ! de
[Download RAW message or body]
On 07/04/16 08:50, Nils Goroll wrote:
> I expect this may look completely different on other platforms.
SmartOS: significantly less efficient than linux, higher real/mono overhead,
double/uint64 not as relevant because of the lower efficiency
[uplex@varnishdev-il ~/src/varnish-cache/lib/libvarnish]$ uname -a
SunOS varnishdev-il.ham1.v0.uplex.de 5.11 joyent_20151029T053122Z i86pc i386 i86pc
[uplex@varnishdev-il ~/src/varnish-cache/lib/libvarnish]$ cc -o foo
-DTEST_DRIVER -I../.. -I../../include vtim.c vas.c -lm
[uplex@varnishdev-il ~/src/varnish-cache/lib/libvarnish]$ ./foo bench
bench noop test value 0.000000
bench noop took 2.616ns per call
bench warmup test value 0.000000
bench warmup took 276.545ns per call
bench VTIM_mono test value 0.000000
bench VTIM_mono took 274.854ns per call
bench VTIM_mono_i test value 0.000000
bench VTIM_mono_i took 269.778ns per call
bench VTIM_real test value 0.000000
bench VTIM_real took 284.716ns per call
bench VTIM_real_i test value 0.000000
bench VTIM_real_i took 285.487ns per call
bench VTIM_mono test value 3678449.798561
bench VTIM_mono took 278.187ns per call
bench VTIM_mono_i test value 3678452517365498.000000
bench VTIM_mono_i took 271.873ns per call
bench VTIM_real test value 1460016144.865661
bench VTIM_real took 293.806ns per call
bench VTIM_real_i test value 1460016147788149504.000000
bench VTIM_real_i took 292.245ns per call
_______________________________________________
varnish-dev mailing list
varnish-dev@varnish-cache.org
https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic