[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [open-cobol-list] openCobol performances issues
|
From: |
Michael D. Setzer II |
|
Subject: |
Re: [open-cobol-list] openCobol performances issues |
|
Date: |
Sat, 13 Sep 2014 08:08:11 +1000 |
On 12 Sep 2014 at 17:00, Sergey Kashyrin wrote:
Date sent: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:00:07 -0400
From: Sergey Kashyrin <address@hidden>
To: "Michael D. Setzer II" <address@hidden>,
ARCHAMBAULT Philippe
<address@hidden>,
"address@hidden"
<address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [open-cobol-list] openCobol performances issues
> Hi,
>
> Try
> cobc -O2 -std=ibm ...
> There is some COMP-4 optimization there.
> -std=mf should also work.
> You can look at the difference in C code
> COMP-5 should also work well in any mode.
>
> Regards,
> Sergey
Original with COMP-5
time ./coblooporg
+200000000
real 0m0.015s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.001s
With -std=ibm
time ./coblooporg
+0200000000
real 0m0.190s
user 0m0.188s
sys 0m0.000s
with -std=mf
time ./coblooporg
+0200000000
real 0m0.194s
user 0m0.186s
sys 0m0.002s
But the binary-c-long signed is fastest so far
time ./cobloop
+00000000000200000000
real 0m0.002s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.000s
Still not clear while the original takes so much longer?
time ./coblooporg
+200000000
real 0m15.802s
user 0m15.733s
sys 0m0.000s
>
>
> On 9/12/2014 4:46 PM, Michael D. Setzer II wrote:
> > On 12 Sep 2014 at 13:47, ARCHAMBAULT Philippe wrote:
> >
> > From: ARCHAMBAULT Philippe <address@hidden>
> > To: "address@hidden"
> > <address@hidden>
> > Date sent: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:47:52 +0000
> > Subject: [open-cobol-list] openCobol performances issues
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> We are migrating from Pseries to Zseries zLinux (redhat 6.4) and
> >> from Microfocus
> >> Cobol to GNUCobol 1.1, and on certains programs we see bad CPU
> >> Performance
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> For examples this kind of test:
> >>
> >> Loop on add 1 to a variable define in PIC S9(09) binary we see:
> >> AIX MFCobol 0,960 sec cpu /
> >> linux OCobol 16,411
> >> sec CPU
> >>
> >> Same test on pic s9(03), pic 9(07), pic 9(10) Packed decimal,
> >> pic9(09) comp-5 do same
> >> results…
> >>
> >> Same result on xLinux (rh 6.4) on HPBlade
> >>
> >> sample program:
> >>
> >> IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
> >> PROGRAM-ID. TESTCOB.
> >> ENVIRONMENT DIVISION.
> >> CONFIGURATION SECTION.
> >> INPUT-OUTPUT SECTION.
> >> DATA DIVISION.
> >> WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
> >> 01 NumericArea.
> >> 02 nums99 pic s9(09) binary.
> >> PROCEDURE DIVISION.
> >> DEBUT-PROGRAMME.
> >> move 0 to nums99
> >> PERFORM 200000000 TIMES
> >> add 1 to nums99
> >> end-perform.
> >> stop run.
> >>
> >>
> >> Any ideas ?
> > Did some quick testing, and found this?
> > Used Linux machine.
> > Original program compiled on machine (added display at end).
> >
> > IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
> > PROGRAM-ID. TESTCOB.
> > ENVIRONMENT DIVISION.
> > CONFIGURATION SECTION.
> > INPUT-OUTPUT SECTION.
> > DATA DIVISION.
> > WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
> > 01 NumericArea.
> > 02 nums99 pic s9(09) binary.
> > PROCEDURE DIVISION.
> > DEBUT-PROGRAMME.
> > move 0 to nums99
> > PERFORM 200000000 TIMES
> > add 1 to nums99
> > end-perform.
> > Display nums99.
> > stop run.
> >
> > cobc -x -O2 coblooporg.cbl
> > time ./coblooporg
> > +200000000
> >
> > real 0m15.862s
> > user 0m15.769s
> > sys 0m0.003s
> >
> > Just changed variable definition
> > < 02 nums99 pic s9(09) binary.
> > ---
> >> 02 nums99 binary-c-long signed.
> > cobc -x -O2 cobloop.cbl
> >
> > time ./cobloop
> > +00000000000200000000
> >
> > real 0m0.002s
> > user 0m0.000s
> > sys 0m0.001s
> >
> > So, originaly got a speed like your 16 seconds, but after that one minor
> > change got a much better time??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > +----------------------------------------------------------+
> > Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor
> > Guam Community College Computer Center
> > mailto:address@hidden
> > mailto:address@hidden
> > http://www.guam.net/home/mikes
> > Guam - Where America's Day Begins
> > G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/
> > +----------------------------------------------------------+
> >
> > http://setiathome.berkeley.edu (Original)
> > Number of Seti Units Returned: 19,471
> > Processing time: 32 years, 290 days, 12 hours, 58 minutes
> > (Total Hours: 287,489)
> >
> > address@hidden CREDITS
> > ROSETTA 19616734.793850 | SETI 33119292.390468
> > ABC 16613838.513356 | EINSTEIN 32606373.008230
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Want excitement?
> > Manually upgrade your production database.
> > When you want reliability, choose Perforce
> > Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
> > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-cobol-list mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-cobol-list
>
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor
Guam Community College Computer Center
mailto:address@hidden
mailto:address@hidden
http://www.guam.net/home/mikes
Guam - Where America's Day Begins
G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer
http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/
+----------------------------------------------------------+
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu (Original)
Number of Seti Units Returned: 19,471
Processing time: 32 years, 290 days, 12 hours, 58 minutes
(Total Hours: 287,489)
address@hidden CREDITS
ROSETTA 19616734.793850 | SETI 33119292.390468
ABC 16613838.513356 | EINSTEIN 32606373.008230