[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Relation between Memory /Time Problem and OS ??
Hi, I have written some xsl, the snippet of which i have posted it with the thread "CallStack overflow error " I am not sure whether this question will appear silly to many but I observed this situation. My input file is of 6.09 MB and I ran the xsl on two different OS and was surprised with the result. Here are the result. ==================================================================== Time on Windows XP Desktop System with P3 Processor and 512 RAM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Source document load time: 2198 milliseconds Stylesheet document load time: 7.545 milliseconds Stylesheet compile time: 18.70 milliseconds Stylesheet execution time: 4379 milliseconds Time on Windows 2000 Server System with P3 Processor and 1.5 GB RAM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Source document load time: 0 milliseconds Stylesheet document load time: 27.01 milliseconds Stylesheet compile time: 8.515 milliseconds Stylesheet execution time: 0 milliseconds ==================================================================== I am using msxsl command line utility to run this. Does msxsl depends on OS ? When i ran the same xsl on input xml file, it ran and gave me the output immediately whereas when i ran it on Windows 2000 server it took long time and then gave me output. And the timing result were as noted above. When i ran a input file of 28 MB, i got Callstack overflow error on Windows XP system and on the server it ran fine but I have to kill the process because it was taking long time. It ran for 30 minutes and produced incomplete desired output. It didn't gave me callStack overflow error. Further I observed the CPU usage as zero for that process in the server when it was taking long time. Is is the lapse time of CPU ? Or Do i have to increae priority of this process ? Am i not able to figure out why this is happening ? As pointed out, my code is inefficient but giving desired output. I am at the sametime writing efficent code using grouping to do the same but stuck at few places. Anyone who has encountered such discrepancy (atleast for me) or know the reason for such behavior please throw some light on this issue. Eagerly waiting for reply. Regards, Dipesh XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|