Sample document attached. The command I've used for testing is:
xmllint --timing --noout --memory ./test.xml
Thanks,
G
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Veillard [mailto:veillard redhat com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:07 AM
To: Grant Goodale
Cc: xml gnome org
Subject: Re: [xml] 2.5.x performance vs. 2.4.24
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:31:36AM -0700, Grant Goodale wrote:
I require thread support, so recompiling without them isn't an option. Nevertheless, I got the same results after rebuilding without
libxml2 used not the be configured with threads by default.
thread support. Any other thoughts? Is there a public ftp site where
I can post the document for other people to try this?
gzip and mail as an attachment, I don't allow upload on my FTP servers anymore :-) . gzipped the 3mb file will certainly reduce to something okay by mail. Make a gzipped tar if other resources are needed to reproduce the problem.
Another data point - the time between brk() calls in 2.4.24
while
running this test is approx. 7 ms. In 2.5.8, it's approx. 100ms. Have
the built-in memory management functions changed much between the two versions?
Well the memory management is delegated to the C (the pthread one on Linux actually) library. If not configured with threads the old version would pick up glibc allocation function, the new one ill use pthread allocation function. On AS 2.1 the pthread memory allocator is slower than the glibc one, but this can't account for a 100x slowdown anyway ! Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/ veillard redhat com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
Attachment:
test.tgz
Description: test.tgz