Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin 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: <001901c17b7c$695fed20$6bef85ce@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: <001401c17b5f$4ef62bb0$9a5f07d5 AT BRAMSCHE>
Subject: Re: Old Thread: Cygwin Performance
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:57:59 -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

Your patch adds lib_cygwin.c to the list of required source files, yet that
new file is not included.  Also, it causes Makefile to invoke the 'get -s'
command, of whose function I am not aware.

On my laptop, running linux, the lmbench-2beta2 version corrects a hang in
the "stable version" code which makes a network connection.  Perhaps that is
not supported anyway in your cygwin 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: Sunday, December 02, 2001 10:29 AM
Subject: RE: Old Thread: Cygwin Performance


> > 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.
>
> Perhaps it is the best, that you look at the patch before offering to the
lmbench maintainer.
> I should note some things to the patch:
>
> 1. It emulates rpc functions by adding a file "lib_cygwin.c" which
contains empty rcp_...
> functions,
>    so that the rpc functions are disabled and will not be tested.
>
> 2. Because the makefile does not have any platform depending parts,
generating lat_rpc.exe is
> disabled
>
> 3. in scripts/lmbench I have added some ' echo -n "*" ' to enable visible
feedback for the
> long time execution of some benchmarks.
>
> 4. On problem I have recognized is with the "lat_select", it hangs on
operation.
>
> 5. Because I don't have any compare of lmbench running time on other
platforms I can't say if
> this is okay. Some benchmarks need several minutes to run, but this may be
okay.
>
> Regards
> Ralf
>
> > ----- 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/
> >
> >
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> --
> 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/