Hi Joaquín, Thanks for the fast reply. After dissecting i found out that the only problem is the the actual invocation of delete(). Code executed: ********************************************************** int *arrayOfPointers[100000]; for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { arrayOfPointers[i] = new int; } for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { delete arrayOfPointers[i]; } ********************************************************** Excuting the for loop that deletes takes 25 times slower then any other computer tested. The average time for a single delete operation is longer in by factor of 25. Therefore, the container got nothing to do with it. I am still searching for the reason for this behavior, i am looking for possible hardware problems. Excuting this code in windows safe mode did not reflect any change. If anyone can recommend tools to diagnose such a problem it will be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Avi Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:

Avi Revivo ha escrito:

...

Note that i created a stand alone application to do only this performance tests compiled in visual studio 2005 without CLI support.

When excuting this test program on other HP G4 servers they run as fast (faster) then the standard PC. I have only 1 HP G4 machine which the performance is as described. I tried all varation of compiler optimization but still. On this machine alone the performance is extermaly worse then all other computers when removing elements from the container.

Hello Avi,

I don't see any reason why the erase part should perform so erraticaly on the HP server, specially when on other servers the program works fine. My hunch is that this could be related to the L1 and L2 cache configuration of the machine. Could you compare this particular setting with those of the servers where performance is adequate?

Other than that I don't know what more to suggest. If you could share the test code I'd be happy to have a look at it. Also, maybe using a pool allocator like http://boost.org/libs/pool/doc/implementation/pool_alloc.html might have some beneficial effect and fix cache anomalies.

Please keep me informed of your progress, if any, with this.

Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Mutli-index-container---performance-varation-when-eras... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Apperantly the cause of the problem was the usage of a utility called Global Flags that made tweaks in the registery and modified the operating system behavior when handling memory. It was not changed back by the person who performed the tweak and failed to let me know about. Thanks alot for your help, Avi Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:

Avi Revivo <revivoavi <at> hotmail.com> writes:

[...]

...

After dissecting i found out that the only problem is the the actual invocation of delete().

Code executed: **********************************************************

int *arrayOfPointers[100000];

for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { arrayOfPointers[i] = new int; }

for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { delete arrayOfPointers[i]; }

**********************************************************

Excuting the for loop that deletes takes 25 times slower then any other computer tested. The average time for a single delete operation is longer in by factor of 25.

Umm... Still it looks like a cache issue. Can you try doing the deleteion in reverse order, from 99999 down to 0? Any difference,

Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Mutli-index-container---performance-varation-when-eras... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.