Comparing LVW and LVL

[pallen]

I'm not sure if such a simple test produces any real meaningful results; But out of curiosity I made a little program last night and ran it on LabView for Windows 7.1 and LabView for Linux 7.0 so that I could compare how fast the code executed.

The code was just two For Loops using Auto Indexing to create a array of random numbers, 1000x1000. In the first trial I used the OpenG Random Number Within Range and set the range to be between 0 and 999. I put that code in the middle of a flat file sequence and grabbed a time stamp on either side.

The code executed in around 1800ms in Linux and around 1000ms on the same hardware running Windows.

I then simplified the code even more by using just the Random Number Generator and went with the values between 0 and 1. This increased the speed of execution in Windows down to around 610ms.

The same code ran under Linux in 500ms.

Not much of benchtest really. But now I'm curious about the differences in speed I might see between the systems. Has anyone else noted differences in execution speeds between LV for Windows and LV for Linux?

[Gary Rubin]

Not much of benchtest really. But now I'm curious about the differences in speed I might see between the systems. Has anyone else noted differences in execution speeds between LV for Windows and LV for Linux?

I'm quite interested in this too.

I'm also attaching the benchmark VI I use for comparing the speed of two different routines, but it can of course be used for testing a single routine.

The higher the number of iterations, the better your answer will be.

Gary

Download File:post-4344-1156524979.vi

[pallen]

Hmm....I get some strange results with that VI.

Here's the one I made up. I'm getting about 660 to 670ms on my 2.0G laptop on LV 7.1 Windows.

I think I'll make a few different tests up to try some specific things. Large array creation, large file transfers, maybe some communication stuff too.

Download File:post-247-1156530396.vi

[Gary Rubin]

Hmm....I get some strange results with that VI.

Can you define "strange results"?

Dumb question, but did you put anything in the for loops?

If I paste your nested loops into one of my for loops, and run it 10 times (all the patience I have right now), I get 490ms per iteration on my 2.4GHz WinXP desktop.

Gary