First performance comparison

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

First performance comparison

Jeremias Maerki
I've just run readme.fo (from the examples) through both 0.20.5 and CVS
HEAD, 20 times in 1 thread, to satisfy my curiosity. I don't want to
hide these numbers from you:

0.20.5 takes 6.3 seconds for that.

CVS HEAD took over 12 seconds at the beginning but spitting out lots of
debug messages. After converting the System.out calls to log.debug calls
and setting the log level to SEVERE, the time went down to 7.8 seconds.
A subjective impression I had was that CVS HEAD took longer to warm up
(i.e. classloading plus initialitation).

readme.fo is a document that except for references looks fine in both
versions, although CVS HEAD produces one page more (11 instead of 10).
It looks like the line heights differ quite a bit.

For all those who'd say now that "the new FOP is too slow, I'm going
somewhere else" (or something like that), bear in mind this is all
preliminary and based on non-optimized code and work in progress. I was
simply curious and I'm sure others are, too. At least, we can say, it's
not that bad and nothing is lost. :-)

More later, probably with measurements with tables and on memory
consumption.

Jeremias Maerki

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First performance comparison

Simon Pepping
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 07:27:27PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:

> I've just run readme.fo (from the examples) through both 0.20.5 and CVS
> HEAD, 20 times in 1 thread, to satisfy my curiosity. I don't want to
> hide these numbers from you:
>
> 0.20.5 takes 6.3 seconds for that.
>
> CVS HEAD took over 12 seconds at the beginning but spitting out lots of
> debug messages. After converting the System.out calls to log.debug calls
> and setting the log level to SEVERE, the time went down to 7.8 seconds.
> A subjective impression I had was that CVS HEAD took longer to warm up
> (i.e. classloading plus initialitation).

Do not forget to mention that the code does more for the user in
terms of determining the best page breaks.

Simon

--
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First performance comparison

J.Pietschmann
In reply to this post by Jeremias Maerki
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> For all those who'd say now that "the new FOP is too slow, I'm going
> somewhere else" (or something like that),

Well, 20% more time isn't all that bad. And remember, there was
a great speed up (around 30%) between 0.20.4 and 0.20.5.

J.Pietschmann
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First performance comparison

gmazza
In reply to this post by Jeremias Maerki
Thanks for taking the time to do this analysis.  I was wondering where
we were standing on performance.

I think it is clear from the 12sec->7.8 sec drop that keeping
logging/stdout output reduced helps performance.  Keeping quiet seems to
be Xalan's approach as well.

I looked at our commericial competitors' sites to see where they are
with logging.  It appears RenderX doesn't log by default but it has a
server-side EnMasse product[1] which does configurable logging.  
AntennaHouse apparently just uses stdout/stderr[2], but I don't know how
much output it produces while running.  Since the logging level is
nonconfigurable, I would suspect not much.

Glen

[1] http://www.renderx.com/enmasseguide.html
[2] http://www.antennahouse.com/support/qa/QA-product.html#QA2003082202


Jeremias Maerki wrote:

>I've just run readme.fo (from the examples) through both 0.20.5 and CVS
>HEAD, 20 times in 1 thread, to satisfy my curiosity. I don't want to
>hide these numbers from you:
>
>0.20.5 takes 6.3 seconds for that.
>
>CVS HEAD took over 12 seconds at the beginning but spitting out lots of
>debug messages. After converting the System.out calls to log.debug calls
>and setting the log level to SEVERE, the time went down to 7.8 seconds.
>A subjective impression I had was that CVS HEAD took longer to warm up
>(i.e. classloading plus initialitation).
>
>readme.fo is a document that except for references looks fine in both
>versions, although CVS HEAD produces one page more (11 instead of 10).
>It looks like the line heights differ quite a bit.
>
>For all those who'd say now that "the new FOP is too slow, I'm going
>somewhere else" (or something like that), bear in mind this is all
>preliminary and based on non-optimized code and work in progress. I was
>simply curious and I'm sure others are, too. At least, we can say, it's
>not that bad and nothing is lost. :-)
>
>More later, probably with measurements with tables and on memory
>consumption.
>
>Jeremias Maerki
>
>
>  
>