From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2019 13:45:49 -0500 Message-ID: <878swlmz6q.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> References: <87d0lxmzyv.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="172714"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 07 20:46:31 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hDCoJ-000is5-KJ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Apr 2019 20:46:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42344 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hDCoI-0002Pn-Hy for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Apr 2019 14:46:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47616) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hDCnt-0002Og-BF for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Apr 2019 14:46:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hDCni-0001o0-0r for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Apr 2019 14:45:57 -0400 Original-Received: from defaultvalue.org ([45.33.119.55]:35524) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hDCng-0001mq-J4 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Apr 2019 14:45:53 -0400 Original-Received: from trouble.defaultvalue.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: rlb@defaultvalue.org) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED39720189 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 13:45:49 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by trouble.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 79E7914E05C; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 13:45:49 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <87d0lxmzyv.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 45.33.119.55 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:19876 Archived-At: Rob Browning writes: > While evaluating guile as a possibility to replace some python code, > assuming I'm not just doing something wrong, I noticed that open-pipe > appears to transfer data *much* more slowly than python when OPEN_BOTH is > specified as opposed to OPEN_READ Oh, and I should have mentioned the version: guile (GNU Guile) 2.2.4 Packaged by Debian (2.2.4-deb+1-1) For what it's worth, in an earlier round of testing I also hacked up open-pipe to let me access the underlying ports and set their buffers to 65k. That doubled the transfer rate, but of course, it's still fairly slow. Thanks -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4