Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Earnie Boyd]

--- Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:
> Hmm.  I would like to receive opinions on whether people consider this
> announcement to be off-topic.
> 

I would consider it off-topic for this list unless the core of the product uses
Cygwin.  Announcements of products using Cygwin should be considered on topic,
IMO.


=====
---
   Earnie Boyd: < mailto:earnie_boyd@yahoo.com >
            __Cygwin: POSIX on Windows__
Cygwin Newbies: < http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html >
           __Minimalist GNU for Windows__
  Mingw32 List: < http://www.egroups.com/group/mingw32/ >
    Mingw Home: < http://www.mingw.org/ >
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re[2]: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Earnie,

Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd@yahoo.com> wrote:

EB> --- Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:
>> Hmm.  I would like to receive opinions on whether people consider this
>> announcement to be off-topic.
>>

EB> I would consider it off-topic for this list unless the core of the product uses
EB> Cygwin.  Announcements of products using Cygwin should be considered on topic,
EB> IMO.

    Thanks, Earnie. It seems that Free Software really have problems,
and vendor patents are not the biggest of them. Remember one of the
latest Freshmeat editorials where Linux community was compared with
guys kicking each other. Lack of generalization...

     But I write this not to release funny thought (nor to be killed
off from list), but to ask you, as cygwin veteran (as well as other
authorities) whether following will be appropriate.

      I'm going to benchmark as many POSIX implementations as I will
be able to put my hands on (this will ammount to very-very little, and
generally I'd prefer someone else to do this, but I'm afraid noone will
bother). Cygwin will be included. So, will results (with appropriate
disclaimer and links to tests sources) be interesting for cygwin
community/appropriate for cygwin mailing list?


EB> ---
EB>    Earnie Boyd: < mailto:earnie_boyd@yahoo.com >

--
Paul Sokolovsky, IT Specialist
http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=11135



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re[2]: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)]

At 02:16 PM 3/13/00, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>Hello Earnie,
>
>Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>EB> --- Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:
> >> Hmm.  I would like to receive opinions on whether people consider this
> >> announcement to be off-topic.
> >>
>
>EB> I would consider it off-topic for this list unless the core of the product uses
>EB> Cygwin.  Announcements of products using Cygwin should be considered on topic,
>EB> IMO.
>
>     Thanks, Earnie. It seems that Free Software really have problems,
>and vendor patents are not the biggest of them. Remember one of the
>latest Freshmeat editorials where Linux community was compared with
>guys kicking each other. Lack of generalization...
>
>      But I write this not to release funny thought (nor to be killed
>off from list), but to ask you, as cygwin veteran (as well as other
>authorities) whether following will be appropriate.
>
>       I'm going to benchmark as many POSIX implementations as I will
>be able to put my hands on (this will ammount to very-very little, and
>generally I'd prefer someone else to do this, but I'm afraid noone will
>bother). Cygwin will be included. So, will results (with appropriate
>disclaimer and links to tests sources) be interesting for cygwin
>community/appropriate for cygwin mailing list?
>
>
>EB> ---
>EB>    Earnie Boyd: < mailto:earnie_boyd@yahoo.com >
>
>--
>Paul Sokolovsky, IT Specialist
> http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=11135



Personally, I think posting comparative data is useful to this list...



Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX
                                        (508) 560-1285 - cell phone



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Chris Faylor]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 06:14:08PM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>At 02:16 PM 3/13/00, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>>Thanks, Earnie.  It seems that Free Software really have problems, and
>>vendor patents are not the biggest of them.  Remember one of the latest
>>Freshmeat editorials where Linux community was compared with guys
>>kicking each other.  Lack of generalization...

I have no problem with comparative benchmarks (and I don't think that
cygwin will be a speed demon).  The theory is that these will actually
mention the program that is the focus of this mailing list.

I am not sure what is translating into problems in the Free Software
community.  Perhaps the original poster would like to provide more
detail about what he is referring to; specifically, with regards to
Cygwin, of course.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Jeff Sturm]

Chris Faylor wrote:
> I have no problem with comparative benchmarks (and I don't think that
> cygwin will be a speed demon).

Don't be so sure.  I've used GCC on Interix for a while... let's just
say that Cygwin rocks.

The Interix product relies heavily on the POSIX subsystem, instead of
shared memory as Cygwin does.  For many of my user applications the
subsystem process actually consumes more CPU time than the application!

Presumably, the tradeoff is between performance and security.  Interix
isn't vulnerable to the same exploits as Cygwin.

--
Jeff Sturm
jsturm@sigma6.com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Cygwin performance (was [ANN] PW32 the...)

[Geoffrey Noer]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2000, Jeff Sturm wrote:
[...]
> Don't be so sure.  I've used GCC on Interix for a while... let's just
> say that Cygwin rocks.
> 
> The Interix product relies heavily on the POSIX subsystem, instead of
> shared memory as Cygwin does.  For many of my user applications the
> subsystem process actually consumes more CPU time than the application!
[...]

Interesting.  We have been trying to improve (and succeeding in
improving) Cygwin's runtime performance but that's been done comparing
Cygwin to Cygwin-past and not so much by doing benchmarks against
other systems I think.

Have people run any benchmarks comparing Cygwin, Uwin, NuTcracker,
Interix, anything else out there?

-- 
Geoffrey Noer				Email: noer@cygnus.com
Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company	http://www.redhat.com/

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: Cygwin performance (was [ANN] PW32 the...)

[Scott Blachowicz]

Geoffrey Noer <noer@cygnus.com> wrote:

> ...
> Interesting. We have been trying to improve (and succeeding in improving)
> Cygwin's runtime performance but that's been done comparing Cygwin to
> Cygwin-past and not so much by doing benchmarks against other systems I
> think.

Great! Have you found any way to improve the performance of commands like 'ls'
against remotely mounted file systems? I frequently have things like

 NET USE * \\SERVER\SHARE

where SERVER is located on the far end of a PPTP link to a system a few
thousand miles (18-22 hops over the Internet via an ISDN connection on my end)
and doing an 'ls' is unuseably slow (and I think I've tried various releases
from b17 to b20.1). So, I usually try to remember to use the "command prompt"
and the DIR command which works just fine. I also wave perl scripts over the
remote directories (scripts that do file globbing and file system traversals)
and they run fine...but they don't try to get all the file info that an 'ls
-l' would - ought to try out an 'ls' command from the Perl Power Tools set
sometime...

At any rate...since 'ls' is hardwired into my fingers and I wander into these
directories often enough, using cygwin can be painful, so I haven't gotten
fully into playing with it yet.

> Have people run any benchmarks comparing Cygwin, Uwin, NuTcracker, Interix,
> anything else out there?

That would be useful info!

Scott.Blachowicz@seaslug.org

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: Cygwin performance (was [ANN] PW32 the...)

[Chris Faylor]

On Mon, Mar 14, 1994 at 04:28:47PM -0800, Scott Blachowicz wrote:
>Geoffrey Noer <noer@cygnus.com> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Interesting. We have been trying to improve (and succeeding in improving)
>> Cygwin's runtime performance but that's been done comparing Cygwin to
>> Cygwin-past and not so much by doing benchmarks against other systems I
>> think.
>
>Great! Have you found any way to improve the performance of commands like 'ls'
>against remotely mounted file systems? I frequently have things like

I think Geoff was referring to improvements that are already in Cygwin.  If you
don't see any changes then there aren't any improvements.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re[2]: Cygwin performance (was [ANN] PW32 the...)

[Egor Duda]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2035 bytes --]

Hi!

Ûcott Blachowicz scott@sabmail.rresearch.com wrote:

SB> Great! Have you found any way to improve the performance of commands like 'ls'
SB> against remotely mounted file systems? I frequently have things like

SB>  NET USE * \\SERVER\SHARE

SB> where SERVER is located on the far end of a PPTP link to a system a few
SB> thousand miles (18-22 hops over the Internet via an ISDN connection on my end)
SB> and doing an 'ls' is unuseably slow (and I think I've tried various releases
SB> from b17 to b20.1). So, I usually try to remember to use the "command prompt"
SB> and the DIR command which works just fine. I also wave perl scripts over the
SB> remote directories (scripts that do file globbing and file system traversals)
SB> and they run fine...but they don't try to get all the file info that an 'ls
SB> -l' would - ought to try out an 'ls' command from the Perl Power Tools set
SB> sometime...

basically, reason is following: ls uses "stat" syscall to obtain file
information. stat returns a handful of parameters, including inode,
permissions and others. to obtain _all_ that info, cygwin must open file
(see stat_worker function at winsup/cygwin/syscalls.cc). opening every
file on network share is pretty slow.

luckily, most of time application don't need _all_ stat information.
for example, if you need to get file time or owner or size only,
there's no need to open file. so, some time ago i've proposed to make
cygwin1.dll export function "stat_lite", which works similar to
"stat", but receives additional flags, showing which fields are of
interest to application. so, after that you can recompile ls to
utilize this function. i've compiled custom version of midnight
commander, and directory browsing becomes several times faster for
slow remote shares.

note: you have to recompile your application to utilize "stat_lite"
function.

Egor.            mailto:deo@logos-m.ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Jeff Sturm]

Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
> Personally, I think posting comparative data is useful to this list...

So do I.  If it mentions Cygwin, it's relevant... if it doesn't mention
Cygwin, it's not appropriate for this list... at least that's what
others seem to be saying, and I tend to agree.

Speaking for myself... I don't mind the occaisional off-topic
announcement, but there is always a danger that they can snowball into a
long non-relevant discussion thread, subverting the real purpose of this
list.  I've seen it happen elsewhere.

--
Jeff Sturm
jsturm@sigma6.com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Chris Faylor]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 07:18:51PM -0500, Jeff Sturm wrote:
>Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>> Personally, I think posting comparative data is useful to this list...
>
>So do I.  If it mentions Cygwin, it's relevant... if it doesn't mention
>Cygwin, it's not appropriate for this list... at least that's what
>others seem to be saying, and I tend to agree.
>
>Speaking for myself... I don't mind the occaisional off-topic
>announcement, but there is always a danger that they can snowball into a
>long non-relevant discussion thread, subverting the real purpose of this
>list.  I've seen it happen elsewhere.

So have I.  That's my primary concern.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: Re[2]: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 r

[Michael Hirmke]

Paul Sokolovsky [paul-ml@is.lg.ua] wrote:

[...]
>      I'm going to benchmark as many POSIX implementations as I will
>be able to put my hands on (this will ammount to very-very little, and
>generally I'd prefer someone else to do this, but I'm afraid noone will
>bother). Cygwin will be included. So, will results (with appropriate
>disclaimer and links to tests sources) be interesting for cygwin
>community/appropriate for cygwin mailing list?

For me it would certainly be.

[...]
>Paul Sokolovsky, IT Specialist

Bye.
Michael.
-- 
Michael Hirmke           | Telefon +49 (911) 557999
Georg-Strobel-Strasse 81 | FAX     +49 (911) 557664
90489 Nuernberg          | E-Mail  mailto:mh@mike.franken.de
                         | WWW     http://aquarius.franken.de/

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com