Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: Relation between Memory /Time Problem and OS ?? From: Kevin Jones <kjones@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 07:21:12 +0100 |
> Source document load time: 0 milliseconds > Stylesheet document load time: 27.01 milliseconds > Stylesheet compile time: 8.515 milliseconds > Stylesheet execution time: 0 milliseconds The timing figures you obtained look bogus. Loading a 6MB document in less than 1 ms is not possible with current parsers/hardware, equally performing a transfrom is in less than 1ms for such a document is highly unlikely. I would suggest the problem is the MSXML command line -t option. Normally to obtain reliable figures you need to perform a transform multiple times and average the results. Even in this case disk cache issues mean document loading times can vary significantly. If you are interested I have some code that should enable you to benchmark your performance using MSXML. Mail me off list for this. I suspect your problem however is an algorithmic issue in your stylesheet that you are not seeing. One way to identify this type of issue is to employ a profiler on different input sizes and look for non-proportional changes for individual templates or specific lines. I don't think you can do this directly against MSXML but other processors support this. See catchXSL for one example or if you can package your stylesheets and a sample input document I can do it against the Sarvega XSLT processor for you. Kevin Jones Sarvega Inc. On Monday 22 September 2003 21:33, Dipesh Khakhkhar wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks a lot for replying. > > Well as I said it as a discrepancy, i mean even if the timing > shown on the Windows 2000 server was less, it took longer than > on the windows XP even if server was having more memory. > > The CPU Speed of the two machine are > > Windows XP : Single Processor of 800 Mhz. > > Windows 2000 server: Dual Processor each of 500 Mhz. > > So even everything is more configuration wise why it took long > time (whereas it didn't showed the correct time with -t > command in MSXSL). > > Thats why i found discrepancy. > > Thanks once again for replying. > > Regards > Dipesh > > > Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:45:39 +0200 > From: "Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [xsl] Re: Relation between Memory /Time Problem and > OS ?? > > > My input file is of 6.09 MB and I ran the xsl on two > > different OS and was surprised with the result. Here are the > > result. > > Why should there be anything surprising? > > Your two platforms were: > > Time on Windows XP Desktop System with P3 Processor and 512 > > RAM > > and > > > Time on Windows 2000 Server System with P3 Processor and 1.5 > > GB RAM > > But you missed to provide very important data -- the CPU speed > of the two P3-s -- it can be quite different. > > Also, the second platform has thrice the memory of platform 1. > > Most probably on platform one the RAM was insufficient, > therefore swapping and thrashing occured. > > On platform 2 the memory was three times more, there was no > swapping, (the CPU speed was probably faster) so it took > dramatically less time to complete. > > > Anyone who has encountered such discrepancy (atleast for me) > > or know the reason for such behavior please throw some light > > on this issue. > > As explained above, this is not discrepancy, but a logical > fact. > > > > ===== > Cheers, > > Dimitre Novatchev. > http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL > > > XSL-List info and archive: > http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Re: Relation between Memo, Andreas L. Delmelle | Thread | RE: [xsl] Re: Relation between Memo, Dipesh Khakhkhar |
[xsl] [ANN] <oXygen/> XML Editor 2., Mihai Ionescu | Date | RE: [xsl] Re: Relation between Memo, Michael Kay |
Month |