Re: [Ql-Users] Why so slow?

[Derek Stewart]

Hi,

I watch and sometimes input.

Regards,

Derek

On 12/10/16 22:31, Klaus-Peter Greiner wrote:

Nearby, i am eagerly watching this list since years; so i am the third
listener 8-)

regards
Klaus-Peter Greiner

Am 12.10.16 um 11:45 schrieb François Van Emelen:

Op 11/10/2016 om 18:15 schreef Ralf Reköndt:

What was the cure?

- Original Message - From: "François Van Emelen"


Sorry for the late reply: I am having some health problems.

Wolfgang found the problem and told me how to solve it.

New timings

Conversion of a DBF-file to a DBS-file (from dos1_ to win2_)

Qpc2 : before correction 1423 sec. after correction 24 sec. (59 x
faster)

Smsqmulator : before correction 47 sec. after correction 26 sec.
(1,8 x faster)

Many thanks to Wolfgang.

Have a fine day,

François Van Emelen


___
QL-Users Mailing List


Hi Ralf,

It was a programming error: an instruction ('update') inside a loop
that should have been outside that loop. Ihis implied an 'update'
after each field (in this case 118) instead of only ONE 'update'
outside the loop. (Is this understandable English?)

Why such an important difference between QPC2 (60x slower) and
QMSQmulator (1.8x slower)? Wolfgang told me that QMSQmulator uses its
own 'win-driver'. For more explanation, you 'd better ask Wolfgang or
Marcel. My skills are limited to some easy Sbasic unfortunately.

Thanks for your reply. that makes 2 listeners on this list :).

François Van Emelen



___
QL-Users Mailing List


___
QL-Users Mailing List

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Why so slow?

[Klaus-Peter Greiner]

Nearby, i am eagerly watching this list since years; so i am the third 
listener 8-)


regards
Klaus-Peter Greiner

Am 12.10.16 um 11:45 schrieb François Van Emelen:

Op 11/10/2016 om 18:15 schreef Ralf Reköndt:

What was the cure?

- Original Message - From: "François Van Emelen"


Sorry for the late reply: I am having some health problems.

Wolfgang found the problem and told me how to solve it.

New timings

Conversion of a DBF-file to a DBS-file (from dos1_ to win2_)

Qpc2 : before correction 1423 sec. after correction 24 sec. (59 x 
faster)


Smsqmulator : before correction 47 sec. after correction 26 sec. 
(1,8 x faster)


Many thanks to Wolfgang.

Have a fine day,

François Van Emelen 


___
QL-Users Mailing List


Hi Ralf,

It was a programming error: an instruction ('update') inside a loop 
that should have been outside that loop. Ihis implied an 'update' 
after each field (in this case 118) instead of only ONE 'update' 
outside the loop. (Is this understandable English?)


Why such an important difference between QPC2 (60x slower) and 
QMSQmulator (1.8x slower)? Wolfgang told me that QMSQmulator uses its 
own 'win-driver'. For more explanation, you 'd better ask Wolfgang or 
Marcel. My skills are limited to some easy Sbasic unfortunately.


Thanks for your reply. that makes 2 listeners on this list :).

François Van Emelen



___
QL-Users Mailing List


___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Why so slow?

[Alexandre Souza]

And how far people are listening...Greetings from Brazil! :)

2016-10-12 8:38 GMT-03:00 Andreas Berger :

> Am 12.10.2016 um 11:45 schrieb François Van Emelen:
>
> Thanks for your reply. that makes 2 listeners on this list :).
>>
>
> you don't know who all is watching/listening - and only not writing at all
> :-)
>
> regards, Andreas
>
> ___
> QL-Users Mailing List
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Why so slow?

[Ralf Reköndt]

Ah, ok, but we have to wait for Marcel to put this into QPC, as he has a 
special SMSQ/E.


- Original Message - 
From: "Wolfgang Lenerz"



Hi,

Put simply, the record "update" forces a flushing of all the buffers for
the file. When using the SMSQ/E routines, this may give rise to writing
several sectors to the disk, one after the other, which is slow. My win
driver handles that a bit differently - there is no  buffer to flush per 
se.


Wolfgang



Hi Ralf,

It was a programming error: an instruction ('update') inside a loop that
should have been outside that loop. Ihis implied an 'update' after each
field (in this case 118) instead of only ONE 'update' outside the loop.
(Is this understandable English?)

Why such an important difference between QPC2 (60x slower) and
QMSQmulator (1.8x slower)? Wolfgang told me that QMSQmulator uses its
own 'win-driver'. For more explanation, you 'd better ask Wolfgang or
Marcel. My skills are limited to some easy Sbasic unfortunately.

Thanks for your reply. that makes 2 listeners on this list :).

François Van Emelen 


___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Why so slow?

[Wolfgang Lenerz]

Hi,

Put simply, the record "update" forces a flushing of all the buffers for
the file. When using the SMSQ/E routines, this may give rise to writing
several sectors to the disk, one after the other, which is slow. My win
driver handles that a bit differently - there is no  buffer to flush per se.

Wolfgang


> Hi Ralf,
> 
> It was a programming error: an instruction ('update') inside a loop that
> should have been outside that loop. Ihis implied an 'update' after each
> field (in this case 118) instead of only ONE 'update' outside the loop.
> (Is this understandable English?)
> 
> Why such an important difference between QPC2 (60x slower) and
> QMSQmulator (1.8x slower)? Wolfgang told me that QMSQmulator uses its
> own 'win-driver'. For more explanation, you 'd better ask Wolfgang or
> Marcel. My skills are limited to some easy Sbasic unfortunately.
> 
> Thanks for your reply. that makes 2 listeners on this list :).
> 
> François Van Emelen
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> QL-Users Mailing List

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Why so slow?

[Andreas Berger]

Am 12.10.2016 um 11:45 schrieb François Van Emelen:


Thanks for your reply. that makes 2 listeners on this list :).


you don't know who all is watching/listening - and only not writing at 
all :-)


regards, Andreas

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Why so slow?

[jms1]

Francois your english is good

John

On 2016-10-12 10:45, François Van Emelen wrote:

Op 11/10/2016 om 18:15 schreef Ralf Reköndt:

What was the cure?

- Original Message - From: "François Van Emelen"


Sorry for the late reply: I am having some health problems.

Wolfgang found the problem and told me how to solve it.

New timings

Conversion of a DBF-file to a DBS-file (from dos1_ to win2_)

Qpc2 : before correction 1423 sec. after correction 24 sec. (59 x 
faster)


Smsqmulator : before correction 47 sec. after correction 26 sec. 
(1,8 x faster)


Many thanks to Wolfgang.

Have a fine day,

François Van Emelen


___
QL-Users Mailing List


Hi Ralf,

It was a programming error: an instruction ('update') inside a loop
that should have been outside that loop. Ihis implied an 'update'
after each field (in this case 118) instead of only ONE 'update'
outside the loop. (Is this understandable English?)

Why such an important difference between QPC2 (60x slower) and
QMSQmulator (1.8x slower)? Wolfgang told me that QMSQmulator uses its
own 'win-driver'. For more explanation, you 'd better ask Wolfgang or
Marcel. My skills are limited to some easy Sbasic unfortunately.

Thanks for your reply. that makes 2 listeners on this list :).

François Van Emelen



___
QL-Users Mailing List


___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Why so slow?

[François Van Emelen]

Op 11/10/2016 om 18:15 schreef Ralf Reköndt:

What was the cure?

- Original Message - From: "François Van Emelen"


Sorry for the late reply: I am having some health problems.

Wolfgang found the problem and told me how to solve it.

New timings

Conversion of a DBF-file to a DBS-file (from dos1_ to win2_)

Qpc2 : before correction 1423 sec. after correction 24 sec. (59 x 
faster)


Smsqmulator : before correction 47 sec. after correction 26 sec. (1,8 
x faster)


Many thanks to Wolfgang.

Have a fine day,

François Van Emelen 


___
QL-Users Mailing List


Hi Ralf,

It was a programming error: an instruction ('update') inside a loop that 
should have been outside that loop. Ihis implied an 'update' after each 
field (in this case 118) instead of only ONE 'update' outside the loop. 
(Is this understandable English?)


Why such an important difference between QPC2 (60x slower) and 
QMSQmulator (1.8x slower)? Wolfgang told me that QMSQmulator uses its 
own 'win-driver'. For more explanation, you 'd better ask Wolfgang or 
Marcel. My skills are limited to some easy Sbasic unfortunately.


Thanks for your reply. that makes 2 listeners on this list :).

François Van Emelen



___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Why so slow?

[Ralf Reköndt]

What was the cure?

- Original Message - 
From: "François Van Emelen"



Sorry for the late reply: I am having some health problems.

Wolfgang found the problem and told me how to solve it.

New timings

Conversion of a DBF-file to a DBS-file (from dos1_ to win2_)

Qpc2 : before correction 1423 sec. after correction 24 sec. (59 x faster)

Smsqmulator : before correction 47 sec. after correction 26 sec. (1,8 x 
faster)


Many thanks to Wolfgang.

Have a fine day,

François Van Emelen 


___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Why so slow?

[François Van Emelen]

Op 6/08/2016 om 13:48 schreef pjwitte:

On 06/08/2016 11:46, François Van Emelen wrote:

Yesterday evening I copied my win2_ (my default) to another location
and linked it to QPC2/SMSQE as WIN7_.
I deleted all files and directories with PWfiles. I then defragmented
my hard drive. Conversion to that empty win7_ took more than 23
minutes... not much faster than before. Lack of space, fragmentation
and swap file can't be the reason why writing to a win device is so
slow (imho). Couldn't the design of the filing system of SMSQ itself
be the cause?

I am not a native speaker ... so the above is perhaps not that
understandable.
Thanks for your contribution.
François Van Emelen


I did a quick test:

QPC2 4.04/SMSQE 3.26 on Win10/2.67GHz/6Gb/500Gb SSD HD

Created a spanking new win8_200
Copied my win2_ to win8_
150Mb (net 135.69Mb)
737 dirs, 8227 files

it took 59 seconds
==

Then I copied the same win2_ to nul (obviously without creating 
(sub)directories on the way)


it took 39 seconds
==

This is about what Id expect. It appears you may have a problem.. ;)

Per
___
QL-Users Mailing List


Sorry for the late reply: I am having some health problems.

Wolfgang found the problem and told me how to solve it.

New timings

Conversion of a DBF-file to a DBS-file (from dos1_ to win2_)

Qpc2 : before correction 1423 sec. after correction 24 sec. (59 x faster)

Smsqmulator : before correction 47 sec. after correction 26 sec. (1,8 x 
faster)


Many thanks to Wolfgang.

Have a fine day,

François Van Emelen




___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Why so slow?

[pjwitte]

On 06/08/2016 11:46, François Van Emelen wrote:

Yesterday evening I copied my win2_ (my default) to another location
and linked it to QPC2/SMSQE as WIN7_.
I deleted all files and directories with PWfiles. I then defragmented
my hard drive. Conversion to that empty win7_ took more than 23
minutes... not much faster than before. Lack of space, fragmentation
and swap file can't be the reason why writing to a win device is so
slow (imho). Couldn't the design of the filing system of SMSQ itself
be the cause?

I am not a native speaker ... so the above is perhaps not that
understandable.
Thanks for your contribution.
François Van Emelen


I did a quick test:

QPC2 4.04/SMSQE 3.26 on Win10/2.67GHz/6Gb/500Gb SSD HD

Created a spanking new win8_200
Copied my win2_ to win8_
150Mb (net 135.69Mb)
737 dirs, 8227 files

it took 59 seconds
==

Then I copied the same win2_ to nul (obviously without creating 
(sub)directories on the way)


it took 39 seconds
==

This is about what Id expect. It appears you may have a problem.. ;)

Per
___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Why so slow?

[Tobias Fröschle]

Have you tried converting to a *freshly formatted* (instead of "made empty") 
win7 qxl-win file? It could well be that the win7 format is somehow corrupted. 

Tobias


> Am 06.08.2016 um 11:46 schrieb François Van Emelen 
> :
> 
> Yesterday evening I copied my win2_ (my default) to another location and 
> linked it to QPC2/SMSQE as WIN7_.
> I deleted all files and directories with PWfiles. I then defragmented my hard 
> drive. Conversion to that empty win7_ took more than 23 minutes... not much 
> faster than before. Lack of space, fragmentation and swap file can't be the 
> reason why writing to a win device is so slow (imho). Couldn't the design of 
> the filing system of SMSQ itself be the cause?
> 
> I am not a native speaker ... so the above is perhaps not that understandable.
> Thanks for your contribution.
> François Van Emelen
> 
> Op 5/08/2016 om 20:17 schreef RWAP Software:
>> 'tIt could depend on a couple of things I should imagine:
>> 
>> a) Whether the win file is fragmented on your PC's hard disk
>> b) Whether the win file is full so each write it has to be extended first to 
>> make room
>> c) The size of your swap file on the PC and how that is being used (again 
>> that may be fragmented)
>> 
>> Rich
>> 
>> ---
>> Rich Mellor RWAP Software www.rwapsoftware.co.uk www.sellmyretro.com
>> 
>> On 2016-08-05 17:11, François Van Emelen wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Why is writing to WIN device so slow compared to writing to RAM and DOS 
>>> device?
>>> 
>>> Converting a 500KB DBF-file (dbase3/foxbase) DBS-file from dos1_
>>> 
>>> 1) to RAM1_ less than 15 sec.
>>> 
>>> 2) to DOS1_ less than 20 sec.
>>> 
>>> 3) to WIN2_ more than 25 MINUTES
>>> 
>>> Why such a huge difference?
>>> 
>>> François Van Emelen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> QL-Users Mailing List
>> ___
>> QL-Users Mailing List
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> QL-Users Mailing List

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Why so slow?

[François Van Emelen]

Yesterday evening I copied my win2_ (my default) to another location and 
linked it to QPC2/SMSQE as WIN7_.
I deleted all files and directories with PWfiles. I then defragmented my 
hard drive. Conversion to that empty win7_ took more than 23 minutes... 
not much faster than before. Lack of space, fragmentation and swap file 
can't be the reason why writing to a win device is so slow (imho). 
Couldn't the design of the filing system of SMSQ itself be the cause?


I am not a native speaker ... so the above is perhaps not that 
understandable.

Thanks for your contribution.
François Van Emelen

Op 5/08/2016 om 20:17 schreef RWAP Software:

'tIt could depend on a couple of things I should imagine:

a) Whether the win file is fragmented on your PC's hard disk
b) Whether the win file is full so each write it has to be extended 
first to make room
c) The size of your swap file on the PC and how that is being used 
(again that may be fragmented)


Rich

---
Rich Mellor RWAP Software www.rwapsoftware.co.uk www.sellmyretro.com

On 2016-08-05 17:11, François Van Emelen wrote:

Hi,

Why is writing to WIN device so slow compared to writing to RAM and 
DOS device?


Converting a 500KB DBF-file (dbase3/foxbase) DBS-file from dos1_

1) to RAM1_ less than 15 sec.

2) to DOS1_ less than 20 sec.

3) to WIN2_ more than 25 MINUTES

Why such a huge difference?

François Van Emelen



___
QL-Users Mailing List

___
QL-Users Mailing List




___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Why so slow?

[RWAP Software]

It could depend on a couple of things I should imagine:

a) Whether the win file is fragmented on your PC's hard disk
b) Whether the win file is full so each write it has to be extended 
first to make room
c) The size of your swap file on the PC and how that is being used 
(again that may be fragmented)


Rich

---
Rich Mellor RWAP Software www.rwapsoftware.co.uk www.sellmyretro.com

On 2016-08-05 17:11, François Van Emelen wrote:

Hi,

Why is writing to WIN device so slow compared to writing to RAM and DOS 
device?


Converting a 500KB DBF-file (dbase3/foxbase) DBS-file from dos1_

1) to RAM1_ less than 15 sec.

2) to DOS1_ less than 20 sec.

3) to WIN2_ more than 25 MINUTES

Why such a huge difference?

François Van Emelen



___
QL-Users Mailing List

___
QL-Users Mailing List

Re: [Ql-Users] Why so slow?

[Giorgio Garabello]

tried with a different .win?
same result?

2016-08-05 18:11 GMT+02:00 François Van Emelen <
francois.vaneme...@telenet.be>:

> Hi,
>
> Why is writing to WIN device so slow compared to writing to RAM and DOS
> device?
>
> Converting a 500KB DBF-file (dbase3/foxbase) DBS-file from dos1_
>
> 1) to RAM1_ less than 15 sec.
>
> 2) to DOS1_ less than 20 sec.
>
> 3) to WIN2_ more than 25 MINUTES
>
> Why such a huge difference?
>
> François Van Emelen
>
>
>
> ___
> QL-Users Mailing List
___
QL-Users Mailing List