Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Phoronix Test Suite 7.0 M5 Released

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Phoronix Test Suite 7.0 M5 Released

    Phoronix: Phoronix Test Suite 7.0 M5 Released

    The latest and last planned development release of Phoronix Test Suite 7.0-Ringsaker is now available for your cross-platform, open-source benchmarking needs...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...t-Suite-7.0-M5

  • #2
    Hi Michael,
    support for using BZIP2 compression when uploading test result XML data to OpenBenchmarking.org
    Is there any special reason you're not using JSON instead of XML?
    I think it's smaller than XML, maybe you don't even need to compress that much the result.
    http://www.json.org/xml.html
    As a web developer, for me it looks smaller easier to read than XML, especially if it's properly indented. I try to use it whenever I can. Firefox extension, Firebug displays it nice.
    I found a comparison example here how easy it's to read by humans (middle page, after the blue ribbon):
    http://blog.cloud-elements.com/json-better-xml
    I heard once that even for machines it's faster to parse, but I'm not sure about that, I haven't done any tests myself.
    I'm sorry I can't help you with this, I would like to contribute back, but I can barely have time these days to read some news here. Maybe sometime in the future.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Danny3 View Post
      Hi Michael,

      Is there any special reason you're not using JSON instead of XML?
      I think it's smaller than XML, maybe you don't even need to compress that much the result.
      http://www.json.org/xml.html
      As a web developer, for me it looks smaller easier to read than XML, especially if it's properly indented. I try to use it whenever I can. Firefox extension, Firebug displays it nice.
      I found a comparison example here how easy it's to read by humans (middle page, after the blue ribbon):
      http://blog.cloud-elements.com/json-better-xml
      I heard once that even for machines it's faster to parse, but I'm not sure about that, I haven't done any tests myself.
      I'm sorry I can't help you with this, I would like to contribute back, but I can barely have time these days to read some news here. Maybe sometime in the future.
      I use XML because that's what I started writing the result file specification and test profile specification in ~9 years ago. So without breaking compatibility for older clients, I keep it as XML.
      Michael Larabel
      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Michael View Post

        I use XML because that's what I started writing the result file specification and test profile specification in ~9 years ago. So without breaking compatibility for older clients, I keep it as XML.
        I understand.
        Thank you very much for replying!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Danny3 View Post

          I understand.
          Thank you very much for replying!
          Yep, no problem. Had I started over I probably would have used JSON or INI based configuration, but since XML was used from the start, that's being maintained. The BZIP2 compression part would have been added even to the JSON though as I added it since for some tests when doing per-frame latency line graphs and running many different GPU tests, I was hitting cases of result files being ~6MB of raw text... due to all the per-frame info, so compression was needed better than the existing zlib support.
          Michael Larabel
          http://www.michaellarabel.com/

          Comment

          Working...
          X