Was curious about this. So ran it as follows...
- winxp 2002 Svc Pack 2
- on
- Toshiba Satellite 1.8Ghz/504MB Ram
- ActiveState Perl 5.8.8
- Section A took 0.7340 CPU seconds
- Section B took 2.5000 CPU seconds
- section A took 0.7500 CPU seconds
- Section B took 16.4530 CPU seconds
- Section A took 0.7660 CPU seconds
- Section B took 2.6400 CPU seconds
- Section A took 0.7650 CPU seconds
- Section B took 15.3440 CPU seconds
- Section A took 0.7340 CPU seconds
- Section B took 2.5630 CPU seconds
- Section A took 0.7340 CPU seconds
- Section B took 16.2030 CPU seconds
- Section A took 0.7340 CPU seconds
- Section B took 2.5630 CPU seconds
- Section A took 0.7340 CPU seconds
- Section B took 16.2030 CPU seconds
####################################################
- On Suse 10.1
- Same Toshiba as mentioned above
- Perl 5.8.8
- Section A took 1.1700 CPU seconds
- Section B took 2.3800 CPU seconds
- Section A took 0.9700 CPU seconds
- Section B took 2.3700 CPU seconds
- Section A took 1.2800 CPU seconds
- Section B took 2.4200 CPU seconds
- Section A took 1.0300 CPU seconds
- Section B took 2.4100 CPU seconds
- Section A took 1.2600 CPU seconds
- Section B took 2.4400 CPU seconds
- Section A took 0.9800 CPU seconds
- Section B took 2.4500 CPU seconds
- Section A took 1.2200 CPU seconds
- Section B took 2.4300 CPU seconds
- Section A took 1.0100 CPU seconds
- Section B took 2.4500 CPU seconds
Leaves me to wonder:
Is this the OS?
The way perl is compiled for the OS?
Both OS's use ~ the same amount of memory (90Meg) during
the run based on TaskManager readings on XP and top readings
on linux, each set to .5 second update. The B second run on XP is about 6.6 times slower than on linux. The A first run is about 1.6 times faster on XP than on linux.
This is very rough data, but interesting none-the-less.
...the majority is always wrong, and always the last to know about it...