Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <008501c17af9$d044f4f0$8feb85ce@amr.corp.intel.com>
From: "Tim Prince" <tprince AT computer DOT org>
To: "Ralf Habacker" <Ralf DOT Habacker AT freenet DOT de>
Cc: "Cygwin" <cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
References: <000601c17aa0$a3f82830$9a5f07d5 AT BRAMSCHE>
Subject: Re: Old Thread: Cygwin Performance
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 22:22:34 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200

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/