Does anyone know if Self will run appropiately on a Sparc 2, 64 MB RAM, Solaris 2.6?
Thanks,
John
Does anyone know if Self will run appropiately on a Sparc 2, 64 MB RAM, Solaris 2.6?
John,
it should be usable on this configuration. All of the Sparc 2's I had access to had 16MB (or less!) of RAM and so I wasn't able to see how much of a factor the slow processor was. I did see the Voyager (Sparc 2 portable) running Self 4.0 and it seemed very reasonable. Of course, this was back in 1995 and the definition of "reasonable" certainly has changed....
-- Jecel
Thanks a bunch, Jecel. Sorry for the extra email I sent you about this :-(
On your recommendation I decided to go ahead and buy it (plus, the price wan't bad at only $200).
John
jecel assumpcao jr. jece-@merlintec.com wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/self-interest/?start=524
Does anyone know if Self will run appropiately on a Sparc 2, 64 MB
RAM,
Solaris 2.6?
John,
it should be usable on this configuration. All of the Sparc 2's I had
access to
had 16MB (or less!) of RAM and so I wasn't able to see how much of a
factor the
slow processor was. I did see the Voyager (Sparc 2 portable) running
Self 4.0
and it seemed very reasonable. Of course, this was back in 1995 and
the
definition of "reasonable" certainly has changed....
-- Jecel
Hi, John!
Thanks a bunch, Jecel. Sorry for the extra email I sent you about this :-(
Strangely enough, I only got that one today.
On your recommendation I decided to go ahead and buy it (plus, the price wan't bad at only $200).
I guess you didn't get a monitor with that? It is a good bargain in any case, but getting one of those old workstation monitors is really a treat.
I was looking through some old emails to find some performance numbers. Here is the number of bytecodes per second that Squeak reported in April, 1997 (in millions):
Sparc 10 1.7 Sparc 20 3.6 UltraSparc 5.2
While it is not possible to do a direct comparison, my Ultra 5 does 10 million bytecodes per second in Squeak 2.2. I can't find any numbers for the Sparc 2, but I seem to remember it was around half that of the Sparc 10.
In May 1997, I wrote: Here is the raw data for the two popular Squeak benchmarks on two different Sparc machines (and the same for the programs translated into Self):
Machine: UltraSparc 1
Squeak: Time millisecondsToRun: [ 10 benchmark ] 948 963 966 984 1045 Time millisecondsToRun: [ 26 benchFib ] 1264 1252 1251 1274 1238
Self 4: [ 10 benchmark ] realTime 1619 329 510 239 501 252 [ 26 benchFib ] realTime 556 40 42 45 38 39
Machine: Meiko Multi Sparc 20
Squeak: Time millisecondsToRun: [ 10 benchmark ] 1508 1492 1491 1524 1513 Time millisecondsToRun: [ 26 benchFib ] 3895 3941 3925 3923 3920
Self 4: [ 10 benchmark ] realTime 1478 268 253 266 180 286 [ 26 benchFib ] realTime 1797 156 146 415 162 154
Well, these numbers are all very obsolete now. But they are the best I have for testing the relative speeds of various processors. Of course, all benchmarks are suspect. For example, the "bogoMIPS" number on my new 350MHz Pentium II machine is almost exactly the same as on my old 166MHz Pentium computer. The ultimate test is to run the application you want and see how it performs.
64MB of memory should be enough as long as you do normal things (I used to get by with half of that). If you start to enumerate all objects (like I do all the time) then you will be constantly swapping to disk and things will be fantastically slow no matter what CPU you have.
Note that the first number beside each Self expression above is always much larger than the ones that follow it. This is the effect of adaptive compilation. This will also make the menu take much longer to pop up the first time you press the mouse button and so on. So a quick test of the Self UI can sometimes leave people with a very negative impression of its performance. It is much more reasonable in real use, however.
-- Jecel
Jecel,
Thanks for the numbers! The only ones I would not trust would be the bytecode-per-second ones. In Smalltalk and Self, costly primitives, such as BitBLT, or an enumeration through memory, show up as a single bytecode. You cannot average those with pushes and pops.
- Dave
At 3:04 PM -0200 12/30/99, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
Hi, John!
Thanks a bunch, Jecel. Sorry for the extra email I sent you about this :-(
Strangely enough, I only got that one today.
On your recommendation I decided to go ahead and buy it (plus, the price wan't bad at only $200).
I guess you didn't get a monitor with that? It is a good bargain in any case, but getting one of those old workstation monitors is really a treat.
I was looking through some old emails to find some performance numbers. Here is the number of bytecodes per second that Squeak reported in April, 1997 (in millions):
Sparc 10 1.7 Sparc 20 3.6 UltraSparc 5.2
While it is not possible to do a direct comparison, my Ultra 5 does 10 million bytecodes per second in Squeak 2.2. I can't find any numbers for the Sparc 2, but I seem to remember it was around half that of the Sparc 10.
In May 1997, I wrote: Here is the raw data for the two popular Squeak benchmarks on two different Sparc machines (and the same for the programs translated into Self):
Machine: UltraSparc 1
Squeak: Time millisecondsToRun: [ 10 benchmark ] 948 963 966 984 1045 Time millisecondsToRun: [ 26 benchFib ] 1264 1252 1251 1274 1238
Self 4: [ 10 benchmark ] realTime 1619 329 510 239 501 252 [ 26 benchFib ] realTime 556 40 42 45 38 39
Machine: Meiko Multi Sparc 20
Squeak: Time millisecondsToRun: [ 10 benchmark ] 1508 1492 1491 1524 1513 Time millisecondsToRun: [ 26 benchFib ] 3895 3941 3925 3923 3920
Self 4: [ 10 benchmark ] realTime 1478 268 253 266 180 286 [ 26 benchFib ] realTime 1797 156 146 415 162 154
Well, these numbers are all very obsolete now. But they are the best I have for testing the relative speeds of various processors. Of course, all benchmarks are suspect. For example, the "bogoMIPS" number on my new 350MHz Pentium II machine is almost exactly the same as on my old 166MHz Pentium computer. The ultimate test is to run the application you want and see how it performs.
64MB of memory should be enough as long as you do normal things (I used to get by with half of that). If you start to enumerate all objects (like I do all the time) then you will be constantly swapping to disk and things will be fantastically slow no matter what CPU you have.
Note that the first number beside each Self expression above is always much larger than the ones that follow it. This is the effect of adaptive compilation. This will also make the menu take much longer to pop up the first time you press the mouse button and so on. So a quick test of the Self UI can sometimes leave people with a very negative impression of its performance. It is much more reasonable in real use, however.
-- Jecel
Tired of the same old games? Play the most popular gameshows online by the co-creator of Jeopardy At BoxerJam.comJoin now and enter to win $1000 cash http://click.egroups.com/1/485/5/_/8257/_/946578404
-- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/self-interest/?m=1
David Ungar Sun Microsystems Laboratories (650) 336-2618
David Ungar wrote:
The only ones I would not trust would be the bytecode-per-second ones. In Smalltalk and Self, costly primitives, such as BitBLT, or an enumeration through memory, show up as a single bytecode. You cannot average those with pushes and pops.
True - the numbers I had listed are simply the results of dividing 5 million by the time to run the infamous "sieve benchmark" a certain number of times. They are only relatively meaningful (to compare two machines) and should not be taken seriously as an indication of the number of bytecodes that Squeak can execute per second.
-- Jecel P.S.: is there anywhere I can download the Mac Self from while self.sunlabs.com is offline?
You can download Self from: http://www.sun.com/research/self/index.html
- Dave
At 2:29 PM -0200 1/5/00, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
David Ungar wrote:
The only ones I would not trust would be the bytecode-per-second ones. In Smalltalk and Self, costly primitives, such as BitBLT, or an enumeration through memory, show up as a single bytecode. You cannot average those with pushes and pops.
True - the numbers I had listed are simply the results of dividing 5 million by the time to run the infamous "sieve benchmark" a certain number of times. They are only relatively meaningful (to compare two machines) and should not be taken seriously as an indication of the number of bytecodes that Squeak can execute per second.
-- Jecel P.S.: is there anywhere I can download the Mac Self from while self.sunlabs.com is offline?
Want to send money instantly to anyone, anywhere, anytime? You can today at X.com - and we'll give you $20 to try it! Sign up today at X.com. It's quick, free, & there's no obligation! http://click.egroups.com/1/332/5/_/8257/_/947090178
-- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/self-interest/?m=1
David Ungar Sun Microsystems Laboratories (650) 336-2618
jecel assumpcao jr. jece-@merlintec.com wrote:
On your recommendation I decided to go ahead and buy it (plus, the price wan't bad at only $200).
I guess you didn't get a monitor with that? It is a good bargain in
any case,
but getting one of those old workstation monitors is really a treat.
Actually, it includes a 19" monitor!!
Have a happy new year,
John
self-interest@lists.selflanguage.org
-
David Ungar -
Jecel Assumpcao Jr. -
John Ars