On Sun, 24 Aug 1997, Jeremy Elson wrote:
>Any profiling done should be done on an active MUD, really. Boot time
>makes little or no difference (IMHO) compared to long-term CPU
>utilization while the MUD is actually being played.
I know, but boot time was the best I could do as I don't have an active
mud.
>The profiles in your last mail, for example, seemed to indicate that
>the buffer routines were using relatively little time compared to,
>say, fread_string(). fread_string(), however, is used a billion times
>when the MUD boots, and then almost never again, so the profile would
>have looked *very* different on a MUD that is being actively played by
>30 people for 6 hours.
I was mostly interested in how long each call took, which is about 1
millisecond. Other than that, I know the functions are going to take the
most time out of the MUD, they are called 92,000 ttimes in bootup alone.
Was just pointing out that using a cache does speed it up because that
doesn't care whether you are booting are not. Also wanted times on
removing the if (ptr == ptr->next) check. That wasn't meant as an overall
look at how fast the entire system runs, just as relative differences in
two minor changes.
--
greerga@muohio.edu me@null.net | Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity
http://www.muohio.edu/~greerga | is not thus handicapped. -- Elbert Hubbard
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST