Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #91263 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-08-16 15:37 +0200 |
| Last post | 2023-08-30 19:02 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 146 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 15:37 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 10:57 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 20:21 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 12:17 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-08-16 21:44 +0300
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 12:09 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 23:17 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 23:21 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 23:39 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 23:59 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 16:27 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2023-08-16 18:06 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-16 19:26 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-08-27 12:26 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-28 00:49 +0100
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-08-27 23:23 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 15:53 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-08-28 09:03 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 18:47 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 13:01 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-30 15:38 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 18:31 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-31 08:22 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-31 11:00 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-31 15:23 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-31 17:28 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-31 11:52 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-31 15:22 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-31 17:32 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-31 15:44 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-31 17:50 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-09-01 10:26 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 12:59 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-09-01 12:30 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 15:33 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-09-01 13:49 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 15:59 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-09-01 14:03 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 16:15 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-09-01 14:39 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 16:59 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-09-01 15:01 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 17:05 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-09-01 15:08 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 17:15 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-31 21:33 +0100
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 05:35 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-31 14:43 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-31 16:57 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-31 16:10 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-31 15:25 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-31 17:33 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-31 16:12 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-28 23:08 +0100
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-28 15:15 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-28 23:41 +0100
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-30 17:45 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-31 03:18 +0100
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-28 15:08 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 08:42 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 11:38 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:50 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 13:10 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 17:47 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 11:00 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-21 17:19 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 19:50 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-21 18:12 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:22 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-21 19:01 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 05:27 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-08-21 23:25 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 11:23 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 11:59 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-08-22 05:15 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 14:23 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-22 06:56 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 11:27 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 11:34 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-22 14:13 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 16:17 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-22 14:27 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 16:48 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-22 14:57 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 17:00 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-22 17:56 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:13 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-22 18:18 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 20:50 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-23 06:51 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 09:59 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-23 07:52 -0400
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 14:40 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-23 14:24 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 16:30 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-23 14:36 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 16:38 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-23 14:43 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 16:45 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-23 17:49 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 20:05 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-24 17:18 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 19:20 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 11:13 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 20:17 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 11:20 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 20:24 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-24 17:25 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 19:29 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-24 17:40 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 19:49 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-25 16:07 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 18:10 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-25 16:15 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 18:18 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-26 08:03 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 10:16 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-26 08:27 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 11:37 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 15:33 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-23 14:20 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 16:32 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-23 14:41 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 16:47 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-23 17:51 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 20:09 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-23 18:51 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 11:25 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-24 17:22 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 19:27 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-24 17:37 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 19:52 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-25 16:07 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 08:00 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-22 15:49 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-22 17:58 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-22 18:24 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-08-23 06:50 +0000
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 13:43 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 02:00 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 05:01 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 17:02 -0700
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 06:15 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 09:43 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 20:34 +0200
Re: Sieve of Eratosthenes Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 19:02 +0200
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 16:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uc2g1f$2eh5h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91343 |
Am 22.08.2023 um 16:13 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > No, not in most cases as endless bloated frameworks ... I'm using standard C++ and no bloating framworks. The memory-con- sumtion is eight times less than with your code because I store each bool as a bit. Your code has bloat, not mine in that sense. > There's a big difference between code thats fully featured and code > thats needlessly compicated because the developer(s) were unable to > think clearly or see the obvious solution. It overburdens you, not every developer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 14:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uc2gjn$2ekj3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91344 |
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 16:17:21 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >Am 22.08.2023 um 16:13 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > >> No, not in most cases as endless bloated frameworks ... > >I'm using standard C++ and no bloating framworks. The memory-con- >sumtion is eight times less than with your code because I store >each bool as a bit. Your code has bloat, not mine in that sense. Accessing bits in a word is normally slower than accessing the whole word on most CPUs. However due to the huge memory this sort of algo can use this access time is probably more than offset by paging delays. Using bits doesn't make you a genius. >> There's a big difference between code thats fully featured and code >> thats needlessly compicated because the developer(s) were unable to >> think clearly or see the obvious solution. > >It overburdens you, not every developer. Whoosh...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 16:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uc2hsd$2eqis$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91345 |
Am 22.08.2023 um 16:27 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > Accessing bits in a word is normally slower than accessing the whole word > on most CPUs. ... I have shown that when the amount of data is large enough, access time has the greatest weight. Furthermore, most of the calculations for the bits within the byte in other arithmetic units take place in parallel. If I choose the data set small enough, your algorithm is faster, but then performance doesn't count anyway. > Using bits doesn't make you a genius. Did I claim that for myself ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 14:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uc2ico$2eu3a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91346 |
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 16:48:45 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >Am 22.08.2023 um 16:27 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > >> Accessing bits in a word is normally slower than accessing the whole word >> on most CPUs. ... > >I have shown that when the amount of data is large enough, access time >has the greatest weight. Furthermore, most of the calculations for the >bits within the byte in other arithmetic units take place in parallel. CPUs only have 1 data bus no matter how many cores they have so the optimum number of threads for this sort of algorithm is very much a suck it and see approach depending on hardware and on a single core CPU your approach would suck badly. >> Using bits doesn't make you a genius. > >Did I claim that for myself ? By denigrating anyone who doesn't like your coding style the implication is there for all to see. You think yourself a better programmer than anyone else on this group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 17:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uc2iiq$2eu9j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91347 |
Am 22.08.2023 um 16:57 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > CPUs only have 1 data bus no matter how many cores they have so the optimum > number of threads for this sort of algorithm is very much a suck it and > see approach depending on hardware and on a single core CPU your approach > would suck badly. Data is fetched in quantities of a cacheline size. And with my code an eight of that quantity is fetched from memory. That's the reason while my code is much faster than yours. > By denigrating anyone who doesn't like your coding style the implication > is there for all to see. You think yourself a better programmer than anyone > else on this group. That's obvious. I'm programming C++ since 1992 and I program at all since I'm 10.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 17:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uc2ss5$2grks$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91348 |
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 17:00:42 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >Am 22.08.2023 um 16:57 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > >> CPUs only have 1 data bus no matter how many cores they have so the optimum >> number of threads for this sort of algorithm is very much a suck it and >> see approach depending on hardware and on a single core CPU your approach >> would suck badly. > >Data is fetched in quantities of a cacheline size. And with my code If it has to be paged from disk in the first place the size of the cache is a total irrelevance as far as time taken is concerned. >an eight of that quantity is fetched from memory. That's the reason >while my code is much faster than yours. As I said, it depends on the hardware. Try both on a Z80 and see what happens. >> By denigrating anyone who doesn't like your coding style the implication >> is there for all to see. You think yourself a better programmer than anyone >> else on this group. > >That's obvious. Thanks for proving you're as arrogant as I thought. >I'm programming C++ since 1992 and I program at all >since I'm 10. If you want to get into a pissing contest about who's been programming longer I suspect a lot of people on this group have been doing it a lot longer than you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 20:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uc2tru$2h0an$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91350 |
Am 22.08.2023 um 19:56 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > If it has to be paged from disk in the first place the size of the > cache is a total irrelevance as far as time taken is concerned. No one uses software that actually pages to disk. Paging is just for that the softwar doesn't crash. > As I said, it depends on the hardware. Try both on a Z80 and see what happens. Your code wasn't intended for a Z-80. > Thanks for proving you're as arrogant as I thought. When you're good in sth. you often appear arrogant. > If you want to get into a pissing contest about who's been programming > longer I suspect a lot of people on this group have been doing it a lot > longer than you. Maybe, but at this level.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 18:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uc2u4r$2h243$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91352 |
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:13:17 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >Am 22.08.2023 um 19:56 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > >> If it has to be paged from disk in the first place the size of the >> cache is a total irrelevance as far as time taken is concerned. > >No one uses software that actually pages to disk. >Paging is just for that the softwar doesn't crash. I suggest you go and google how operating system virtual memory works. >> As I said, it depends on the hardware. Try both on a Z80 and see what >happens. > >Your code wasn't intended for a Z-80. What was it intended for then given it was written in basic C? >> Thanks for proving you're as arrogant as I thought. > >When you're good in sth. you often appear arrogant. "sth"? >> If you want to get into a pissing contest about who's been programming >> longer I suspect a lot of people on this group have been doing it a lot >> longer than you. > >Maybe, but at this level. At your level? Absolutely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-22 20:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uc302f$2hahp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91353 |
Am 22.08.2023 um 20:18 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:13:17 +0200 > Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >> Am 22.08.2023 um 19:56 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >> >>> If it has to be paged from disk in the first place the size of the >>> cache is a total irrelevance as far as time taken is concerned. >> >> No one uses software that actually pages to disk. >> Paging is just for that the softwar doesn't crash. > > I suggest you go and google how operating system virtual memory works. Swapping is for stability and not for performance. No one considers running applications actually swapping. > What was it intended for then given it was written in basic C? You didn't write that on a Z-80.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 06:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uc4a9v$2qq8f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91355 |
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:50:55 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >Am 22.08.2023 um 20:18 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:13:17 +0200 >> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Am 22.08.2023 um 19:56 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >>> >>>> If it has to be paged from disk in the first place the size of the >>>> cache is a total irrelevance as far as time taken is concerned. >>> >>> No one uses software that actually pages to disk. >>> Paging is just for that the softwar doesn't crash. >> >> I suggest you go and google how operating system virtual memory works. > >Swapping is for stability and not for performance. For stability? Seriously? >No one considers running applications actually swapping. > >> What was it intended for then given it was written in basic C? > >You didn't write that on a Z-80. No, but I've got a Z80 C compiler that would happily compile and run it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 09:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uc4e92$2rd5a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91357 |
Am 23.08.2023 um 08:51 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:50:55 +0200 > Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >> Am 22.08.2023 um 20:18 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 20:13:17 +0200 >>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Am 22.08.2023 um 19:56 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >>>> >>>>> If it has to be paged from disk in the first place the size of the >>>>> cache is a total irrelevance as far as time taken is concerned. >>>> >>>> No one uses software that actually pages to disk. >>>> Paging is just for that the softwar doesn't crash. >>> >>> I suggest you go and google how operating system virtual memory works. >> >> Swapping is for stability and not for performance. > > For stability? Seriously? Main memory has a latency from 20 - 30ns per access. My 1TB Samsung PCIe 4.0 SSD has a synchronous latency of 32us, that's up to factor 1.800. Do you really think that a swappable application is usable ? Swapping is just for low memory conditions so that the application won't stop or crash. > No, but I've got a Z80 C compiler that would happily compile and run it. I don't believe you. And no one is using Z-80s today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 07:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1qmFM.783950$TPw2.627247@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #91358 |
On 8/23/23 3:59 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > > Main memory has a latency from 20 - 30ns per access. My 1TB Samsung > PCIe 4.0 SSD has a synchronous latency of 32us, that's up to factor > 1.800. Do you really think that a swappable application is usable ? > Swapping is just for low memory conditions so that the application > won't stop or crash. Your forgetting that in thst 32us you get a whole sector of data, not just one word, so the slow down in much less of a factor. Also, and application being "slow" is better than the application just can't be run because it uses too much resource (even having the machine all to itself). Yes, with todays 64-bit address space, we tend to not need to design in "swapping" as might have been needed with 16-bit machines, but many applications are still designed based on the knowledge that they are likely using more memory that is likely physically present, so they try to optimize access to take that into account. Good practice looks at the whole hierarchy, after all, data in Level 1 cache is MUCH faster to access then data in main memory, which is faster than data on local storage, is much faster than data out on the network. Forget that and you task suddenly hits a wall and just crawls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 14:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uc4uo3$2tv6l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91359 |
Am 23.08.2023 um 13:52 schrieb Richard Damon: > Your forgetting that in thst 32us you get a whole sector of data, > not just one word, so the slow down in much less of a factor. I'm not forgetting that. I dropped this because the relationship is that hughe anyway. The sector is the size of a cacheline and when you switch on your computer the SDRAM's burst size is configured according to the cacheline size. > Also, and application being "slow" is better than the application just > can't be run because it uses too much resource (even having the machine > all to itself). That's what I told: swapping is just a stability feature. Applications are normally not useable when they swap or even the whole machine isn't usable because essential pages of other processes were swapped out. > Yes, with todays 64-bit address space, we tend to not need to design > in "swapping" as might have been needed with 16-bit machines, ... Swapspace makes sense even if the swap actually isn't touched. When you commit some memory with VirtualAlloc() under Windows and memory hasn't been touched yet the kernel has subtracted an according amount of space from swap so that if swapping would be necessary when the pages are touched the first time there's enough swap space. Solaris works the same way. But Linux by default does overcommit so that an application might crash if there's not enough swapspace if a page is touched the first time. But Linux can be configured like Windows and Solaris so that there's enough swap reserved when you allocate memory. The problem with that under Linux is that if you have a massively for- king application where the child processes modify only a small portion of the shared memory there might be a large amount of memory subtracted from swap. > ... but many applications are still designed based on the knowledge > that they are likely using more memory that is likely physically present, > ... That's not really an optimizatiob but a common assumption.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 14:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uc54qh$2v1bp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91360 |
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 14:40:36 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >Am 23.08.2023 um 13:52 schrieb Richard Damon: >> Yes, with todays 64-bit address space, we tend to not need to design >> in "swapping" as might have been needed with 16-bit machines, ... > >Swapspace makes sense even if the swap actually isn't touched. When you >commit some memory with VirtualAlloc() under Windows and memory hasn't Does windows still use a filesystem file for swap making it horrendously slow as swap data has to go in and out via the high level filesystem layer or has MS discovered the concept of swap partitions yet? >The problem with that under Linux is that if you have a massively for- >king application where the child processes modify only a small portion >of the shared memory there might be a large amount of memory subtracted >from swap. > >> ... but many applications are still designed based on the knowledge >> that they are likely using more memory that is likely physically present, >> ... > >That's not really an optimizatiob but a common assumption. Sadly not in the Java world where "grab as much memory as you can on startup" seems to be the JVM motto.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uc5559$2v27t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91362 |
Am 23.08.2023 um 16:24 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > Does windows still use a filesystem file for swap making it horrendously > slow as swap data has to go in and out via the high level filesystem layer > or has MS discovered the concept of swap partitions yet? That's not slow if you simply memorize the cluster-addresses of the blocks holding the pagefile in non-pageable memory. That's that simple that I think it's the way how ms does that. > Sadly not in the Java world where "grab as much memory as you can on > startup" seems to be the JVM motto. That's not true. Java-applications would be even less responsive since a garbage collection involves copying the whole heap to a new heap.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 14:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uc55h8$2v57p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91363 |
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 16:30:01 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >Am 23.08.2023 um 16:24 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >> Sadly not in the Java world where "grab as much memory as you can on >> startup" seems to be the JVM motto. > >That's not true. Java-applications would be even less responsive >since a garbage collection involves copying the whole heap to a >new heap. Certainly seemed to be the case back when I was involved in Java. One would hope its evolved since then.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 16:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uc55lr$2v5is$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91365 |
Am 23.08.2023 um 16:36 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 16:30:01 +0200 > Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >> Am 23.08.2023 um 16:24 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >>> Sadly not in the Java world where "grab as much memory as you can on >>> startup" seems to be the JVM motto. >> >> That's not true. Java-applications would be even less responsive >> since a garbage collection involves copying the whole heap to a >> new heap. > > Certainly seemed to be the case back when I was involved in Java. One would > hope its evolved since then. > Others just have the composure to devote themselves to complex problems, you don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 14:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uc55uo$2v7k7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91366 |
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 16:38:51 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >Am 23.08.2023 um 16:36 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 16:30:01 +0200 >> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Am 23.08.2023 um 16:24 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >>>> Sadly not in the Java world where "grab as much memory as you can on >>>> startup" seems to be the JVM motto. >>> >>> That's not true. Java-applications would be even less responsive >>> since a garbage collection involves copying the whole heap to a >>> new heap. >> >> Certainly seemed to be the case back when I was involved in Java. One would >> hope its evolved since then. >> > >Others just have the composure to devote >themselves to complex problems, you don't. It wasn't my problem other than the JVM was killing our servers performance so go swivel on it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 16:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uc561h$2v7nu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91368 |
Am 23.08.2023 um 16:43 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 16:38:51 +0200 > Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >> Others just have the composure to devote >> themselves to complex problems, you don't. > It wasn't my problem other than the JVM was killing our > servers performance so go swivel on it. Java Frameworks are really complex and you're at the level of simple details. So I think you never were involved in such projects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 17:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uc5gqi$317jq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91369 |
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 16:45:06 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >Am 23.08.2023 um 16:43 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > >> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 16:38:51 +0200 >> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Others just have the composure to devote >>> themselves to complex problems, you don't. > >> It wasn't my problem other than the JVM was killing our >> servers performance so go swivel on it. > >Java Frameworks are really complex and you're at the level of >simple details. So I think you never were involved in such projects. You must be a very insecure person constantly putting others down to make yourself feel better. What job do you do? Do you even have one?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web