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" <[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/
