From owner-freebsd-java Sat Dec 2 3:39:30 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Received: from cafe.muraoka.info.waseda.ac.jp (cafe.muraoka.info.waseda.ac.jp [133.9.68.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8F537B400 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 03:39:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from muraoka.info.waseda.ac.jp (shudoh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cafe.muraoka.info.waseda.ac.jp (8.9.1a/3.7W) with ESMTP id UAA32417; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 20:37:59 +0900 Message-Id: <200012021137.UAA32417@cafe.muraoka.info.waseda.ac.jp> To: Mikhail Kruk Cc: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Performance hint for JDK on FreeBSD In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 01 Dec 2000 19:46:54 EST." Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 20:37:59 +0900 From: SHUDO Kazuyuki Sender: owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Mikhail Kruk wrote: > isn't it just known fact that 1.2 is all times worst in term of > performance? Using Windows as a references system (since I don't have > access to a single Sun machine), I've noticed that 1.1 is the fastest, 1.3 > is acceptable and 1.2 is ... well, I try not to use it. A certain amount of functions that were written in C in 1.1 were rewritten in Java for 1.2. This is one of reasons why 1.2 is slower than 1.1. JVM of 1.2.2 loads over 150 classes when it starts up, even though 1.1.8 loads about 50 classes. This means that plenty of method invocations happen. > So what I'm getting at is: do we need a 1.2 port or is it better to > concentrate on 1.3? 1.3 loads more classes. But selective compilation technique and other improvements made start-up time acceptable. Kazuyuki SHUDO Happy Hacking! Muraoka Lab., Grad. School of Sci. & Eng., Waseda Univ. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message