On 2022-01-25 19:35, David Wright wrote: > On Tue 25 Jan 2022 at 01:37:29 (-0500), a wrote: >> Thank David and Polyna-Maude! >> >> it's surprising that "The x64 binary are also somewhat larger than the >> i386 binaries" >> >> i compare some packages of bullseye for both arch, they happen to be >> contrary >> >> though difference is small and IMO has little impact on performance >> >> firefox-esr for i386: size= 58465416 >> >> firefox-esr for amd64: size= 55451188 >> >> gcc-10 for i386: size= 18097884 >> >> gcc-10 for amd64: size= 16990272 > > Well, we've gone from ISOs containing different inventories to sizes > of packages. I still don't see how that affects performance. > > All I did was to type ls -l /usr/bin for the two architectures into > two xterms in two viewports, and blink-compare them. Some binaries > were larger and some were smaller. > > But let's try running them. I happen to have two freshly installed > bullseyes, and neither has run the installed FF before. Their dotfiles > in my home directories are close to identical, and their starting > pages are blank. > > i386: > > VSZ RSZ %MEM PID STAT CMD > 1200184 176396 34.9 1603 Sl+ firefox-esr > 477488 50140 9.9 1880 Sl+ /usr/lib/firefox-esr/firefox-esr > -contentproc -ch> > 467760 34188 6.7 1821 Sl+ /usr/lib/firefox-esr/firefox-esr > -contentproc -ch> > 455296 27436 5.4 1958 Sl+ /usr/lib/firefox-esr/firefox-esr > -contentproc -ch> > > amd64: > > VSZ RSZ %MEM PID STAT CMD > 3082424 408156 2.5 2538 Sl+ firefox-esr > 2446004 146664 0.9 2662 Sl+ /usr/lib/firefox-esr/firefox-esr > -contentproc -> > 2417628 117508 0.7 2694 Sl+ /usr/lib/firefox-esr/firefox-esr > -contentproc -> > 2403264 108072 0.6 2603 Sl+ /usr/lib/firefox-esr/firefox-esr > -contentproc -> > > The difference is larger than I thought it would be. Others would > have to interpret the actual numbers. The main difference that > /I/ notice is the speed, but it would be an unfair comparison, > pitching 1.5GHz/512MB with 1GB encrypted swap on 2004-era rust > against a multi-core 2.7GHz/16GB with a 2017-era SSD (but no swap). > Starting times come out at 3 minutes vs perhaps one second. > Did you ask your question in a real-world intention ? I mean based on something you want to implement and may have resources limitation so want to have the most for what you got ?
Or was it only a question for "academic" purposes ? That you wanted some answer and explanation without any context that you can give. Without regards to code size or whatever, there may or may not be a performance advantage and this depend on both the type of workload and the system you are running under. Regarding code size, it's also mostly dependent on some choice made during calculation such as level of optimization and how the compiler build the output. So your simple question needs more real world data if you want a useful answer. If it's only for curiosity then there's plenty of books to read and you'll find answers. > Cheers, > David. > -- Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside -Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
