Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/12/02/01:23:53
I'd suggest you offer your patch to the lmbench maintainers. At one time,
they were talking about supporting something for Windows. If they don't
adopt it, I suppose the other alternative is to offer to maintain a Cygwin
port as an optional Cygwin package. I'd certainly like to try your version.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralf Habacker" <Ralf DOT Habacker AT freenet DOT de>
To: "Tim Prince" <tprince AT computer DOT org>
Cc: "Cygwin" <cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 11:44 AM
Subject: RE: Old Thread: Cygwin Performance
> >
> > cygwin should have made some improvements in piping since then. Amazing
the
> > things I had time to do last year. At that time, I got over a few of
the
> > linux specific functions by the use of Chuck Wilson's useful packages,
some
> > of which should be integrated into cygwin now. I commented out sections
of
> > lmbench which I couldn't figure out how to port. This would be a useful
> > port, particularly in view of the new performance issues brought up by
XP.
>
> I have get running lmbench 2.0 on cygwin with some patches (removing rpc
functions).
>
> Is there anyone who could verify this patch ? To whom should I send this
patch ?
>
> Regards
> Ralf
>
> > However, several of the organizations involved in lmbench are trying to
stay
> > clear of Bill Gates' vendetta against use of open software together with
his
> > products. I was not employed by such an organization at the time I was
> > beating on lmbench.
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Piyush Kumar" <piyush AT acm DOT org>
> > To: "Cygwin AT Cygwin. Com" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
> > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 6:49 AM
> > Subject: Old Thread: Cygwin Performance
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I picked this old thread from Oct 2000!!!
> > > Tim reports that cygwin falls short by
> > > performance compared to linux box by a
> > > factor of 2 using lmbench. Is it still
> > > the case? Or have things improved since
> > > Oct 13(Unlucky date!! ;)??
> > >
> > > I was trying to compile lmbench 2.0 (Patch 2)
> > > on my cygwin , no luck!!!! I couldnt compile it!
> > > Anyone here has tried it before ?? Any luck?
> > > I would be really interested in a lmbench port
> > > on cygwin! If someone has already done it , please
> > > let me know!
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > --Piyush
> > >
> > >
> > > =============================================================An Old
Thread
> > >
> > > Re: Cygwin Performance Info
> > > To: <cygwin at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>, "Chris Abbey" <cabbey
at
> > > chartermi dot net>
> > > Subject: Re: Cygwin Performance Info
> > > From: "Tim Prince" <tprince at computer dot org>
> > > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:12:40 -0700
> > > References: <4 DOT 3 DOT 2 DOT 7 DOT 0 DOT 20001013184237 DOT 00b6cd70 AT pop DOT bresnanlink DOT net>
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > ----
> > >
> > > When I attempted to run lmbench on this old box both under linux and
cygwi
> > n,
> > > there were some tests on which cygwin/w2k fell short of linux by a
factor
> > of
> > > 2 or more (opening files, pipe throughput, and the like), and then
there
> > > were the cache statistics on which cygwin beat linux by a small
margin. I
> > > was expecting lmbench to become better adapted to cygwin, but I have
no
> > news
> > > there.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Chris Abbey" <cabbey AT chartermi DOT net>
> > > To: <cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 4:51 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Cygwin Performance Info
> > >
> > >
> > > > At 19:23 10/13/00 -0400, Laurence F. Wood wrote:
> > > > >Can someone tell me where the performance hit is in cygwin unix
> > > > >emulation?
> > > >
> > > > whichever part you use the most inside your tightest inner loop.
> > > >
> > > > seriously.
> > > >
> > > > that's a big huge open ended question (not about cygwin, about ANY
> > > > library/platform) that is as specific to your application as you can
> > > > get. For example, if you spend 75% of your computing day
manipulating
> > > > text files and piping them and greping them and running file utils
> > > > against them then the cr/lf translation may be a big hit for you.
> > > > On the otherhand if most of your computation in a day is spent
answering
> > > > requests that come in on tcp/ip sockets then the remapping of
winsock
> > > > to netinet.h functions maybe your major headache. (note, I'm not
trying
> > > > to imply that either function has a performance problem, merely that
> > they
> > > > would be representative places that would have high invocation
counts
> > > > in the course of the given activity.)
> > > >
> > > > To really answer that for your application/workload then you need to
> > > > get some form of performance detailing that can tell you how much
time
> > > > you are spending in any given method and how often it's called.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> > > > Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> > > Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> > > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> > > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> > Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
> >
> >
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -