AFAIK, performance is not yet the main concern for VSI.
Sure, and I understand this, however the link time between the rx2660 (elapsed:1 cpu:103) and the Intel NUC 6 core i7 1.10GHz 32GB X86 (elapsed:131 cpu:13071) is so
chalk-and-cheese that something else has to be going on.
If you compare VUPS between your rx2660 (486) and DWPS (150) and the consumed CPU time for the link operation (103 / 390), the results seem comparable: 486/150=3.2 and 390/103=3.8
Not so for the 2 x86-64 systems: VUPS 602/282=2.14 and CPU 91035/13071=6.96
I noticed this myself but not expressed eloquently as above.
Might just reflect an older generation of i7 (Dell) and a difference between 3.4 and 1.10 GHz clock speed (see below).
What's the difference between those 2 x86-64 systems ? Faster CPU ? Different kinds of disks ?
BXNUC10i7FNH4 6 core i7 1.10GHz 32GB X86
Dell Optiplex 9020 SFF i7-4770 QC 3.4Ghz 16GB Windows 10 Pro
Both using SSDs.
The differences between the X86 systems is not of concern. Each just reflects the level of investment between real development system (NUC on Linux) and a casual development machine (Dell on Win10). I had access to two very different X86 systems and wanted to demonstrate they both behaved in a similar fashion.
To reiterate; the seeming significant difference
between X86 and non-X86 platform linking. The rx2660 completes the link in a second. The 20+ year old PWS in 4 seconds.
State of the art systems in
2+ minutes and 15+ minutes.
The four accounts used to run these links on each system are quite comparable:
Code: Select all
Maxjobs: 0 Fillm: 128 Bytlm: 256000
Maxacctjobs: 0 Shrfillm: 0 Pbytlm: 0
Maxdetach: 0 BIOlm: 150 JTquota: 4096
Prclm: 10 DIOlm: 150 WSdef: 4096
Prio: 4 ASTlm: 300 WSquo: 8192
Queprio: 0 TQElm: 100 WSextent: 16384
CPU: (none) Enqlm: 4000 Pgflquo: 700000
I have added the suggested data and the disk performance measurement.
Code: Select all
HP rx2660 (1.40GHz/6.0MB) with 4 CPU and 14335MB running VMS V8.4-2L3
INFO: Preventing endless loop (10$) on fast CPUs
Approximate System VUPs Rating : 487.2 ( min: 487.2 max: 487.2 )
elapsed:1 cpu:101 diocnt:0 pageflts:5655
CUR AVE MIN MAX
5817.33 6123.96 5817.33 6567.00
Digital Personal WorkStation with 1 CPU and 1536MB running VMS V8.4-2L1
Approximate System VUPs Rating : 151.0 ( min: 151.0 max: 151.0 )
elapsed:4 cpu:387 diocnt:0 pageflts:1497
CUR AVE MIN MAX
1016.06 1016.34 1014.40 1018.06
! BXNUC10i7FNH4 6 core i7 1.10GHz 32GB
innotek GmbH VirtualBox with 2 CPU and 7680MB running VMS V9.2
INFO: Preventing endless loop (10$) on fast CPUs
Approximate System VUPs Rating : 620.8 ( min: 616.6 max: 625.0 )
%ILINK-I-THREADUPCALLS, user thread upcalls automatically enabled
elapsed:131 cpu:13083 diocnt:0 pageflts:29298
CUR AVE MIN MAX
9729.00 9098.80 8171.51 10274.18
! Dell Optiplex 9020 SFF i7-4770 QC 3.4Ghz 16GB Windows 10 Pro
innotek GmbH VirtualBox with 2 CPU and 7574MB running VMS V9.2
INFO: Preventing endless loop (10$) on fast CPUs
Approximate System VUPs Rating : 291.0 ( min: 289.4 max: 291.8 )
%ILINK-I-THREADUPCALLS, user thread upcalls automatically enabled
elapsed:912 cpu:90834 diocnt:0 pageflts:30048
CUR AVE MIN MAX
5965.84 4766.99 4415.99 5965.84
Thanks for your interest Volker.
Added in 19 minutes 47 seconds:
sms wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:33 pm
It takes only a few minutes to learn some basic formatting Steve. There are buttons.
Code: Select all
> Why does static linking an image take several tens (even hundreds) of
> times longer on X86 than on Itanium or Alpha?
Code: Select all
Did you determine that "static" made a difference? How many
different jobs have you tested?
Yes, and a single job.
Code: Select all
How similar/different are the process quotas? "7574MB" sounds good,
but how much of it can this process use? I/O speed?
The account quotas across the systems are comparable. Certainly makes my 1.5GB PWS pale. The additional data are addressed in the response to Volker.
Code: Select all
I might run the job in batch, and look at the "Accounting
information" in the log file. CPU speed is not the only determinant of
the time to complete a task.
Sure, it's not. It might account for 2x, 3x, even 10x depending on the platform but not in this context for 100x, 200x, ... On my humble PWS 500 it takes seconds, not minutes.
Thanks for your input.