> Source document load time:     0 milliseconds
> Stylesheet document load time: 27.01 milliseconds
> Stylesheet compile time:       8.515 milliseconds
> Stylesheet execution time:     0 milliseconds

The timing figures you obtained look bogus. Loading a 6MB 
document in less than 1 ms is not possible with current 
parsers/hardware, equally performing a transfrom is in less than 
1ms for such a document is highly unlikely. 

I would suggest the problem is the MSXML command line -t option. 
Normally to obtain reliable figures you need to perform a 
transform multiple times and average the results. Even in this 
case disk cache issues mean document loading times can vary 
significantly.  If you are interested I have some code that 
should enable you to benchmark your performance using MSXML. 
Mail me off list for this. 

I suspect your problem however is an algorithmic issue in your 
stylesheet that you are not seeing. One way to identify this 
type of issue is to employ a profiler on different input sizes 
and look for non-proportional changes for individual templates 
or specific lines. I don't think you can do this directly 
against MSXML but other processors support this. See catchXSL 
for one example or if you can package your stylesheets and a 
sample input document I can do it against the Sarvega XSLT 
processor for you.

Kevin Jones
Sarvega Inc.

On Monday 22 September 2003 21:33, Dipesh Khakhkhar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks a lot for replying.
>
> Well as I said it as a discrepancy, i mean even if the timing
> shown on the Windows 2000 server was less, it took longer than
> on the windows XP even if server was having more memory.
>
> The CPU Speed of the two machine are
>
> Windows XP : Single Processor of 800 Mhz.
>
> Windows 2000 server: Dual Processor each of 500 Mhz.
>
> So even everything is more configuration wise why it took long
> time (whereas it didn't showed the correct time with -t
> command in MSXSL).
>
> Thats why i found discrepancy.
>
> Thanks once again for replying.
>
> Regards
> Dipesh
>
>
> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:45:39 +0200
> From: "Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject:  Re: Relation between Memory /Time Problem and
> OS ??
>
> > 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.
>
> Why should there be anything surprising?
>
> Your two platforms were:
> > Time on Windows XP Desktop System with P3 Processor and 512
> > RAM
>
> and
>
> > Time on Windows 2000 Server System with P3 Processor and 1.5
> > GB RAM
>
> But you missed to provide very important data -- the CPU speed
> of the two P3-s -- it can be quite different.
>
> Also, the second platform has thrice the memory of platform 1.
>
> Most probably on platform one the RAM was insufficient,
> therefore swapping and thrashing occured.
>
> On platform 2 the memory was three times more, there was no
> swapping, (the CPU speed was probably faster) so it took
> dramatically less time to complete.
>
> > Anyone who has encountered such discrepancy (atleast for me)
> > or know the reason for such behavior please throw some light
> > on this issue.
>
> As explained above, this is not discrepancy, but a logical
> fact.
>
>
>
> =====
> Cheers,
>
> Dimitre Novatchev.
> http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL
>
>
>  XSL-List info and archive: 
> http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list