[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Performance issues using GAWK 3.1.6 ->from Win 2008 t

From: Koleti, Haritha
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Performance issues using GAWK 3.1.6 ->from Win 2008 to Win 2016
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 11:49:36 +0000

Good Morning Arnold,

I might have missed your email . In so many emails that are going back and 

I have been working on different directions on network/system/Microsoft. 
looking for a resource/ buying time from business users.   etc..
And the script I was requesting was another script that needed to be addressed 
as it was taking forever and we needed to address to be on the migrated server. 
 Which is crucial.

I am very glad to see so much help flowing to me. I feel extremely lucky to 
have you all responding .  Please do not misunderstand me. I cannot explain 
completely my situation but I apologize if I have ignored any suggestions by 

I will take a look at your email Arnold and respond shortly. Please accept my 
sincere apologies.

Is there away we can get on zoom, I will call all my resources, Windows,Unix 


[http://facebook.com/pseg]<http://www.facebook.com/pseg>        [Twitter] 
<http://www.twitter.com/psegdelivers>         [LinkedIn] 
[https://www.pseg.com/images/global/WP_LOGOgrey.png] <http://energizepseg.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: arnold@skeeve.com <arnold@skeeve.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 4:26 AM
To: eliz@gnu.org; arnold@skeeve.com
Cc: wolfgang.laun@gmail.com; Pereira, Ricardo <Ricardo_D.Pereira@pseg.com>; 
mortoneccc@comcast.net; mcollado2011@gmail.com; Pirane, Marco 
<Marco.Pirane@pseg.com>; Koleti, Haritha <Haritha.Koleti@pseg.com>; 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Performance issues using GAWK 3.1.6 ->from Win 2008 
to Win 2016

***CAUTION******CAUTION******CAUTION***This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL address. 
 The actual sender is  (arnold@skeeve.com) which may be different from the 
display address in the From: field. Be cautious of clicking on links or opening 
attachments. Suspicious? Report it via the Report Phishing button.  On mobile 
phones, forward message to Cyber Security.


Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> Are you sure it isn't a Gawk problem?  Did you look at the gprof
> profile I posted, and if so, does everything there look as expected?

I did look at it, and it looked fine. I apologize for not responding to the 
group about that.  I have many other things going on. :-(

> Because it could be that these scripts, no matter how inefficient and
> badly written, expose some issue with Gawk, which somehow rears its
> ugly head on Windows 10.  Until we have eliminated that possibility, I
> don't see how we can decide this is off-topic here.

What's clear is:

1. The scripts are poorly written. They should be fixed no matter what.

2. Haritha and company could use some external help in doing that
  (consultant, Ed, whatever, but inappropriate to the list).

3. There is *some* difference between the environments, given the
  change in runtimes between the same gawk binary (3.1.6) on
  both systems.  Trying to isolate that is also inappropriate to
  the list.

>From everything I've seen so far, I see no indication of any problem in gawk 

> I do agree that the continuing discussion of how to improve the
> scripts may have crossed the line of being on-topic here.  But that
> wasn't what I was asking about.  The only issue that still bothers me
> is the sudden performance regression when the scripts were used on
> another version of the same OS.  We don't have any explanation for
> that, and in the experiment I conducted (see my report yesterday,
> which surprisingly didn't get any responses) I couldn't reproduce the
> regression.  Does the lack of responses to that experiment mean we
> consider the regression to be some fluke in the OP's environment
> unworthy of our attention?  If so, we can indeed stop talking about
> the problem here.

>From my point of view, it looks like "some fluke in the OP's environment"
and thus need not be discussed here.

I'm NOT saying "let's leave the user out in the cold". I'm simply asking that 
discussion and further attempts to help be done elsewhere.



The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is 
intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended 
recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages 
to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute 
or retain this message, in whole or in part, without written authorization from 
PSEG. This e-mail may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged 
information. If you have received this message in error, please notify the 
sender immediately. This notice is included in all e-mail messages leaving 
PSEG. Thank you for your cooperation.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]