> -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Prince [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 10:58 PM > To: Ralf Habacker > Cc: Cygwin > Subject: Re: Old Thread: Cygwin Performance > > > Your patch adds lib_cygwin.c to the list of required source files, yet that > new file is not included.
Sorry, I've only compared the original source files with the patched, so it fall through. It's appended. > Also, it causes Makefile to invoke the 'get -s' command, of whose function I am not >aware. I'm not aware too, I have recognized this in the Makefile, but I have ignored this :-) > > 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Tim Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Cygwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Tim Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Cc: "Cygwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: "Cygwin@Cygwin. Com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > 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: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -- > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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/ > >
lib_cygwin.c
Description: Binary data
-- 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/
