It has always been known (I think) that there is a huge difference in speed between Linux native pipes and streams based pipes via LiS. 

I have seen similar results sending UDP datagrams through the Linux loopback driver using native sockets vs the inet driver that Brian publishes.  I get about a 10:1 ratio between sockets and streams.

Nothing has ever jumped out at me when I run oprofile during these tests -- except lock contention.  Which is what I am working on now.

-- Dave

At 11:58 AM 4/9/2004, Eugene LiS User wrote:

To exclude my module from the picture I have decided to compare
data pumping rates for the pipe interface.
I have googled pipespeed2 program, downloaded it and with a minor changes
got it compiled in 2 versions with and without LiS.

The results are as following:

# ./ps2 2000k 4k                          
ps2 -x 1 2048000 4096    9.163 Seconds --  915.493 MB/sec

# ./ps2lis 2000k 4k                          
ps2lis -x 1 2048000 4096   45.602 Seconds --  183.953 MB/sec

Clearly there is some overhead in the LiS version of a pipe.
[Hopefuly [for my module] that overhead is not only pipe related]

Attached is a programm.

Compiling with LiS:


# cc -I/usr/src/LiS/include -L /usr/src/LiS/libc -lLiS -o ps2lis pipespeed2.c

Compiling without LiS:

# cc -o ps2 pipespeed2.c





__________________________________________________________________
Introducing the New Netscape Internet Service.
Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register

Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp



---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.655 / Virus Database: 420 - Release Date: 4/8/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.655 / Virus Database: 420 - Release Date: 4/8/2004

Reply via email to