RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jan 28 08:49:50 EST 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-January/142966.html

IMO the timings of the benchmark suite are a bit unstable -- this is not the
fault of Intel's setup, I noticed it also when running the suite myself.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 06:48:54PM +0000, Stewart, David C wrote:
> Wow, what happened to Python default to cause such a regression?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/26/16, 7:31 AM, "lp_benchmark_robot" <lp_benchmark_robot at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> >Results for project Python default, build date 2016-01-26 03:07:40 +0000
> >commit:		cbd4a6a2657e
> >previous commit:	f700bc0412bc
> >revision date:	2016-01-26 02:54:37 +0000
> >environment:	Haswell-EP
> >	cpu:		Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz 2x18 cores, stepping 2, LLC 45 MB
> >	mem:		128 GB
> >	os:		CentOS 7.1
> >	kernel:	Linux 3.10.0-229.4.2.el7.x86_64
> >
> >Baseline results were generated using release v3.4.3, with hash b4cbecbc0781
> >from 2015-02-25 12:15:33+00:00
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >              benchmark   relative   change since   change since   current rev run
> >                          std_dev*       last run       baseline          with PGO
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >:-)           django_v2      0.21%         -2.93%          8.95%            16.19%
> >:-|             pybench      0.10%          0.05%         -1.87%             5.40%
> >:-(            regex_v8      2.72%         -0.02%         -4.67%             4.57%
> >:-|               nbody      0.13%         -0.92%         -1.33%             7.40%
> >:-|        json_dump_v2      0.20%          0.87%         -1.59%            11.48%
> >:-|      normal_startup      0.90%         -0.57%          0.10%             5.35%
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >* Relative Standard Deviation (Standard Deviation/Average)
> >
> >If this is not displayed properly please visit our results page here: http://languagesperformance.intel.com/bad-benchmark-results-for-python-default-2016-01-26/
> >
> >Note: Benchmark results are measured in seconds.
> >
> >Subject Label Legend:
> >Attributes are determined based on the performance evolution of the workloads
> >compared to the previous measurement iteration.
> >NEUTRAL: performance did not change by more than 1% for any workload
> >GOOD: performance improved by more than 1% for at least one workload and there
> >is no regression greater than 1%
> >BAD: performance dropped by more than 1% for at least one workload and there is
> >no improvement greater than 1%
> >UGLY: performance improved by more than 1% for at least one workload and also
> >dropped by more than 1% for at least one workload
> >
> >
> >Our lab does a nightly source pull and build of the Python project and measures
> >performance changes against the previous stable version and the previous nightly
> >measurement. This is provided as a service to the community so that quality
> >issues with current hardware can be identified quickly.
> >
> >Intel technologies' features and benefits depend on system configuration and may
> >require enabled hardware, software or service activation. Performance varies
> >depending on system configuration.
> _______________________________________________
> Python-checkins mailing list
> Python-checkins at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-checkins

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-January/142966.html below:

[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] BAD Benchmark Results for Python Default 2016-01-26