Re: how to test and compare performance of bullseye for i386 and amd64
On Wed 26 Jan 2022 at 05:44:50 (-0500), Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote:
> On 2022-01-25 19:35, David Wright wrote:
> > On Tue 25 Jan 2022 at 01:37:29 (-0500), a wrote:
> >> Thank David and Polyna-Maude!
> >>
> >> it's surprising that "The x64 binary are also somewhat larger than the
> >> i386 binaries"
> >>
> >> i compare some packages of bullseye for both arch, they happen to be
> >> contrary
> >>
> >> though difference is small and IMO has little impact on performance
> >>
> >> firefox-esr for i386: size= 58465416
> >>
> >> firefox-esr for amd64: size= 55451188
> >>
> >> gcc-10 for i386: size= 18097884
> >>
> >> gcc-10 for amd64: size= 16990272
> >
> > Well, we've gone from ISOs containing different inventories to sizes
> > of packages. I still don't see how that affects performance.
> >
> > All I did was to type ls -l /usr/bin for the two architectures into
> > two xterms in two viewports, and blink-compare them. Some binaries
> > were larger and some were smaller.
> >
> > But let's try running them. I happen to have two freshly installed
> > bullseyes, and neither has run the installed FF before. Their dotfiles
> > in my home directories are close to identical, and their starting
> > pages are blank.
> >
> > i386:
> >
> > VSZ RSZ %MEM PID STAT CMD
> > 1200184 176396 34.9 1603 Sl+ firefox-esr
> > 477488 50140 9.9 1880 Sl+ /usr/lib/firefox-esr/firefox-esr -contentproc -ch>
> > 467760 34188 6.7 1821 Sl+ /usr/lib/firefox-esr/firefox-esr -contentproc -ch>
> > 455296 27436 5.4 1958 Sl+ /usr/lib/firefox-esr/firefox-esr -contentproc -ch>
> >
> > amd64:
> >
> > VSZ RSZ %MEM PID STAT CMD
> > 3082424 408156 2.5 2538 Sl+ firefox-esr
> > 2446004 146664 0.9 2662 Sl+ /usr/lib/firefox-esr/firefox-esr -contentproc ->
> > 2417628 117508 0.7 2694 Sl+ /usr/lib/firefox-esr/firefox-esr -contentproc ->
> > 2403264 108072 0.6 2603 Sl+ /usr/lib/firefox-esr/firefox-esr -contentproc ->
> >
> > The difference is larger than I thought it would be. Others would
> > have to interpret the actual numbers. The main difference that
> > /I/ notice is the speed, but it would be an unfair comparison,
> > pitching 1.5GHz/512MB with 1GB encrypted swap on 2004-era rust
> > against a multi-core 2.7GHz/16GB with a 2017-era SSD (but no swap).
> > Starting times come out at 3 minutes vs perhaps one second.
> >
> Did you ask your question in a real-world intention ? I mean based on
> something you want to implement and may have resources limitation so
> want to have the most for what you got ?
>
> Or was it only a question for "academic" purposes ? That you wanted some
> answer and explanation without any context that you can give.
The charitable interpretation I placed on "a", aka "lou", is that
they¹ have found a 32-bit-only wireless adapter, run a 32-bit
system, and are generally unimpressed by its speed.
If you remember, reading PDFs was slow, firmware-free adapters
were hard to find, and firmware-inclusive installers were elusive,
in the eyes of the OP. So, a less charitable interpretation might
be in order.
> If it's only for curiosity then there's plenty of books to read and
> you'll find answers.
Ah, PDFs. Catch 22 here.
¹ Forgive my grammar, RMS.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: