Difference between revisions of "Part 1 Speed"
From CMSC 420
m (Nice formatting) |
m |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<code> | <code> | ||
<pre> | <pre> | ||
| − | ./gnarly.py n | time java - | + | ./gnarly.py n | time java -Xmx8192M -Xincgc Main > /dev/null |
</pre> | </pre> | ||
</code> | </code> | ||
| − | where n is replaced with one of the values from the table. (You may need to <code>tap java150</code> to access Java on Grace.) | + | where n is replaced with one of the values from the table. (You may need to <code>tap java150</code> to access Java on Grace.) Yes, that's a lotta memory. |
| − | {| border="1" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto | + | {| border="1" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto" |
|- | |- | ||
| − | !Who !! n=10 !! n=100 !! n=1000 !! n= | + | !Who !! n=10 !! n=100 !! n=1000 !! n=5000 !! Notes |
|- | |- | ||
| − | |Ben || 1 || 1 || 11 || | + | |Ben || 1 || 1 || 11 || 210 || Run by jkleint... Used 7 GB RAM. That's 1.4 MB per city. Dang. |
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is just for kicks on Part 1; we're not grading performance. These timings probably include so much XML parsing overhead as to be pretty meaningless anyway. They're a rough guide; if your solution is working and you're taking more than 2-3x this time (or memory!), try running a profiler to see where your code is spending its time. Or steal someone else's for Part 2. :) | ||
Latest revision as of 05:22, 30 March 2007
These are user times in seconds (rounded up) from running the following command on linux.grace.umd.edu:
./gnarly.py n | time java -Xmx8192M -Xincgc Main > /dev/null
where n is replaced with one of the values from the table. (You may need to tap java150 to access Java on Grace.) Yes, that's a lotta memory.
| Who | n=10 | n=100 | n=1000 | n=5000 | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ben | 1 | 1 | 11 | 210 | Run by jkleint... Used 7 GB RAM. That's 1.4 MB per city. Dang. |
This is just for kicks on Part 1; we're not grading performance. These timings probably include so much XML parsing overhead as to be pretty meaningless anyway. They're a rough guide; if your solution is working and you're taking more than 2-3x this time (or memory!), try running a profiler to see where your code is spending its time. Or steal someone else's for Part 2. :)
