Claim your bragging rights.
OS: Archlinux x64 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3820 CPU @ 3.60GHz RAM: 8Gb 63 test file(s) executed in 91.11 s, 0 failure(s) of 107 test(s)
On 03/07/2012 01:48 AM, freevryheid wrote:
Claim your bragging rights.
OS: Archlinux x64 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3820 CPU @ 3.60GHz RAM: 8Gb 63 test file(s) executed in 91.11 s, 0 failure(s) of 107 test(s)
Is it 2012.2 or git master? I have made some performance tweaks, but as the tests use (very) small problems, it's almost not visible - the speed of tests seems to be mostly related to disk speed and possibly memory than to CPU speed (compare your and mine CPUs...).
OS: Kubuntu x64 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9300 @ 2.50GHz RAM: 4GB 2012.2: 63 test file(s) executed in 97.22 s, 0 failure(s) of 107 test(s) git (26bca788c6370a4bfc5fe1fd58537f59522c3d20): 63 test file(s) executed in 95.64 s, 0 failure(s) of 107 test(s)
2012.2?!!
On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 1:40:24 AM UTC-8, Robert Cimrman wrote:
On 03/07/2012 01:48 AM, freevryheid wrote:
Claim your bragging rights.
OS: Archlinux x64 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3820 CPU @ 3.60GHz RAM: 8Gb 63 test file(s) executed in 91.11 s, 0 failure(s) of 107 test(s)
Is it 2012.2 or git master? I have made some performance tweaks, but as the tests use (very) small problems, it's almost not visible - the speed of tests seems to be mostly related to disk speed and possibly memory than to CPU speed (compare your and mine CPUs...).
OS: Kubuntu x64 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9300 @ 2.50GHz RAM: 4GB 2012.2: 63 test file(s) executed in 97.22 s, 0 failure(s) of 107 test(s) git (26bca788c6370a4bfc5fe1fd58537f59522c3d20): 63 test file(s) executed in 95.64 s, 0 failure(s) of 107 test(s)
On 03/07/2012 11:46 AM, Md. Golam Rashed wrote:
2012.2?!!
2012.1, of course :)
On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 1:40:24 AM UTC-8, Robert Cimrman wrote:
On 03/07/2012 01:48 AM, freevryheid wrote:
Claim your bragging rights.
OS: Archlinux x64 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3820 CPU @ 3.60GHz RAM: 8Gb 63 test file(s) executed in 91.11 s, 0 failure(s) of 107 test(s)
Is it 2012.2 or git master? I have made some performance tweaks, but as the tests use (very) small problems, it's almost not visible - the speed of tests seems to be mostly related to disk speed and possibly memory than to CPU speed (compare your and mine CPUs...).
OS: Kubuntu x64 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9300 @ 2.50GHz RAM: 4GB 2012.2: 63 test file(s) executed in 97.22 s, 0 failure(s) of 107 test(s) git (26bca788c6370a4bfc5fe1fd58537f59522c3d20): 63 test file(s) executed in 95.64 s, 0 failure(s) of 107 test(s)
Is it 2012.2 or git master?
git master. I haven't been keeping track but did cython help the speed any?
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Robert Cimrman <cimr...@ntc.zcu.cz> wrote:
On 03/07/2012 01:48 AM, freevryheid wrote:
Claim your bragging rights.
OS: Archlinux x64 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3820 CPU @ 3.60GHz RAM: 8Gb 63 test file(s) executed in 91.11 s, 0 failure(s) of 107 test(s)
Is it 2012.2 or git master? I have made some performance tweaks, but as the tests use (very) small problems, it's almost not visible - the speed of tests seems to be mostly related to disk speed and possibly memory than to CPU speed (compare your and mine CPUs...).
OS: Kubuntu x64 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9300 @ 2.50GHz RAM: 4GB 2012.2: 63 test file(s) executed in 97.22 s, 0 failure(s) of 107 test(s) git (**26bca788c6370a4bfc5fe1fd58537f**59522c3d20): 63 test file(s) executed in 95.64 s, 0 failure(s) of 107 test(s)
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sfepy-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sfepy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sfepy-devel+unsubscribe@** googlegroups.com <sfepy-devel%...@googlegroups.com>. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/sfepy-devel?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/sfepy-devel?hl=en> .
-- Andre
On 03/07/2012 02:49 PM, Andre Smit wrote:
Is it 2012.2 or git master?
git master. I haven't been keeping track but did cython help the speed any?
It helped not in terms of speed, but it did help in terms of code simplicity. I have actually written some code that was in C directly in cython. So e.g. handling of complex numbers is for free now.
Overall, the assembling of vector/matrix is slower than it was two years ago, but the code is much more readable/simpler now (and more work is done during the assembling now - lazy evaluation of reference mappings etc.). There are certainly areas where the speed could be re-gained without much pain. Also the speed of other, non-assembling, parts of the code is better now. For example
time ./simple.py examples/diffusion/cube.py
with meshes/3d/cube_big_tetra.mesh mesh gives now
sfepy: nls: iter: 0, residual: 2.110578e+01 (rel: 1.000000e+00) sfepy: cg convergence: 0 (successful exit) sfepy: rezidual: 0.13 [s] sfepy: solve: 0.49 [s] sfepy: matrix: 0.16 [s] sfepy: linear system not solved! (err = 1.851779e-11 < 1.000000e-12) sfepy: nls: iter: 1, residual: 1.851784e-11 (rel: 8.773824e-13)
real 0m10.983s user 0m10.489s sys 0m0.368s
and with two years old code
sfepy: nls: iter: 0, residual: 2.110578e+01 (rel: 1.000000e+00) sfepy: rezidual: 0.03 [s] sfepy: solve: 0.49 [s] sfepy: matrix: 0.12 [s] sfepy: linear system not solved! (err = 1.851779e-11) sfepy: nls: iter: 1, residual: 1.851784e-11 (rel: 8.773824e-13)
real 0m19.853s user 0m19.265s sys 0m0.492s
r.
participants (4)
-
Andre Smit -
freevryheid
-
Md. Golam Rashed -
Robert Cimrman