Re^3: Errors when using DProf to profile

Yes, D:S is slow. On the other hand, how often does a program need to be profiled? If D:S makes the program run an order of magnitude slower, that shouldn't be a problem for most situations. I can see it being a problem if it's doing some compute-intensive work, and needing months instead of weeks to finish, but then, it wouldn't be written in Perl, would it?

Curiosity: Is the output of Devel::FastProf the same as Devel::SmallProf? I wonder if my script will work on both?

<Off Topic Rant>
Unfortunately, I'm in a mostly Windoze shop. It's only a Windoze shop because it's convenient, not out of some necessity. But I have a few users, and everything has to be portable to *nix too. The *nix stuff is not administered properly, and depending on which workstation my user is on, s/he may only have Perl 4 available, and other crud like that. Weirdly enough, it's easier to standardize on Windoze here, because they'd rather sling money around than administer *nix machines properly.

So everyone has XP Pro SP2 on a recent laptop. If we really need some compute power or storage, we have to jump through paperwork hoops, and entertain arguments about whose desk it goes on, etc. (It's usually "I don't want it on my desk, I just want access to it".)
</Off Topic Rant>

-QM
--
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of

Comment on Re^3: Errors when using DProf to profile

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Errors when using DProf to profile by doc_faustroll (Scribe) on Mar 30, 2006 at 16:26 UTC
We all hate windoze. and Cygwin is really a pain in so many ways. I'm all Linux all the time at my office. For my windoze laptop and in windoze shops, I'm now using VMware Player with a fedora core 5 community released guest os from thoughtpolice. It is very nice to have Linux running in full. and you can just say yum install this or that instead of that cygwin hoop jumping. and you can lose the early versions of Perl.	[reply]
OT: Windoze and *nix (was Re^5: Errors when using DProf to profile) by QM (Parson) on Mar 30, 2006 at 16:54 UTC
That sounds like a good solution. Unfortunately for me, my users need to run stuff on specific *nix boxes connected to $1e6++ equipment, to avoid transferring GBs of data over the network to PCs. They're not very interested in spending several hours transferring both ways, on top of the run time for the applications. But I'm slowly getting them educated, so someday they wrangle the infrastructure to work for them, and not the other way around. -QM -- Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of	[reply]