[xsl] Re: Relation between Memory /Time Problem and OS ??

Subject: [xsl] Re: Relation between Memory /Time Problem and OS ??
From: Dipesh Khakhkhar <dkhakhkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:33:18 -0400

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.


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


> 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

> 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.


Dimitre Novatchev.
http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list

Current Thread