From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30703 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2001 19:39:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30671 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2001 19:39:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mout0.freenet.de) (194.97.50.131) by hostedprojects.ges.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2001 19:39:50 -0000 Received: from [194.97.50.136] (helo=mx3.freenet.de) by mout0.freenet.de with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #3) id 16AFzI-0004Kn-00; Sat, 01 Dec 2001 20:39:48 +0100 Received: from b5f9a.pppool.de ([213.7.95.154] helo=BRAMSCHE) by mx3.freenet.de with smtp (Exim 3.33 #3) id 16AFzG-0001NJ-00; Sat, 01 Dec 2001 20:39:47 +0100 From: "Ralf Habacker" To: "Tim Prince" Cc: "Cygwin" Subject: RE: Old Thread: Cygwin Performance Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 11:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: <000601c17aa0$a3f82830$9a5f07d5@BRAMSCHE> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <012b01c17a75$23ed6f90$96ef85ce@amr.corp.intel.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 > > 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" > To: "Cygwin@Cygwin. 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: , "Chris Abbey" > chartermi dot net> > > Subject: Re: Cygwin Performance Info > > From: "Tim Prince" > > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:12:40 -0700 > > References: <4.3.2.7.0.20001013184237.00b6cd70@pop.bresnanlink.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" > > To: > > 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@sourceware.cygnus.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/