Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Performance issues using GAWK 3.1.6 ->from Win 2008 to Win 2016

[arnold]

Haritha,

I am the primary gawk maintainter. Since I work exclusively on Linux,
I have been keeping out of the discussion.

My VERY STRONG request to you and everyone else trying to help you
is to please move ALL futher discussion to private mail, immediately.

Thanks,

Arnold

"Koleti, Haritha" <Haritha.Koleti@pseg.com> wrote:

> Arnold -> I see the below email from you .    Is this the one  you are asking 
> to try ?
>
> - W  -> I asked my server team to look at i/o buffer size.    They did not 
> give me clear answer so did not respond on this.  But when I checked on task 
> manager Cache is showing ~4.6 GB used 1.4 GB free.  and Page memory also 178 
> MB free.
>
> Once I have complete details from my server team I will let you know i/o 
> buffer size.
>
> Thanks
> Haritha
>
>
>
>
> On mobile phones, forward message to Cyber Security.
>
> Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The durations 10 min and 90 min suggest to me that a lot of i/o is
> > going on. I have experienced performance changes of a similar order of
> > magnitude due to changes in the default i/o buffer size.
> > -W
>
> This is an interesting idea. Eli, what if you supply a binary built with the 
> following patch?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Arnold
> --------------------
> diff --git a/pc/gawkmisc.pc b/pc/gawkmisc.pc index 4e58b0a8..4be131b8 100644
> --- a/pc/gawkmisc.pc
> +++ b/pc/gawkmisc.pc
> @@ -165,6 +165,9 @@ optimal_bufsize(fd, stb)  int fd;  struct stat *stb;  {
> +#if 1
> +return 4096;
> +#else
> /* force all members to zero in case OS doesn't use all of them. */
> memset(stb, '\0', sizeof(struct stat));
>
> @@ -182,6 +185,7 @@ struct stat *stb;
>     && 0 < stb->st_size && stb->st_size < DEFBLKSIZE) /* small file */
> return stb->st_size;
> return DEFBLKSIZE;
> +#endif
> }
>
> /* ispath --- return true if path has directory components */
>
> [https://www.pseg.com/images/global/email/PSEG_emailsignature_PSEGw-tag_version2.png]<http://www.pseg.com>
> [http://facebook.com/pseg]<http://www.facebook.com/pseg>        [Twitter] 
> <http://www.twitter.com/psegdelivers>         [LinkedIn] 
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/pseg>       
> [https://www.pseg.com/images/global/WP_LOGOgrey.png] 
> <http://energizepseg.com/>
>
>
> PSEGSC
> -----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>; 
> bug-gawk@gnu.org
> 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.
>
> Hi.
>
> 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 
> itself.
>
> > 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.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Arnold
>
> 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.