Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 10:32:29 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <v36p6t$12k77$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v2l828$18v7f$1@dont-email.me>
 <00297443-2fee-48d4-81a0-9ff6ae6481e4@gmail.com>
 <v2lji1$1bbcp$1@dont-email.me> <87msoh5uh6.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <f08d2c9f-5c2e-495d-b0bd-3f71bd301432@gmail.com>
 <v2nbp4$1o9h6$1@dont-email.me> <v2ng4n$1p3o2$1@dont-email.me>
 <87y18047jk.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <87msoe1xxo.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v2sh19$2rle2$2@dont-email.me>
 <87ikz11osy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v2v59g$3cr0f$1@dont-email.me>
 <20240528144118.00002012@yahoo.com> <v34odg$kh7a$1@dont-email.me>
 <20240528185624.00002494@yahoo.com> <v359f1$nknu$1@dont-email.me>
 <20240528232315.00006a58@yahoo.com> <v35qrg$qhnf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 10:32:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2973a68944d5fb399809b749e2ae973b";
	logging-data="1134823"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+NkSpXPDjCMgew2+fkydA8pl1IwnePtMg="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OGRGvk+hMcaj2sdbQXVoXYUr7RU=
In-Reply-To: <v35qrg$qhnf$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3052

On 29/05/2024 01:54, bart wrote:
> On 28/05/2024 21:23, Michael S wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 19:57:38 +0100
> 
>>> OK, I had go with your program. I used a random data file of exactly
>>> 100M bytes.
>>>
>>> Runtimes varied from 4.1 to 5 seconds depending on compiler. The
>>> fastest time was with gcc -O3.
>>>
>>
>> It sounds like your mass storage device is much slower than aging SSD
>> on my test machine and ALOT slower than SSD of David Brown.
> 
> David Brown's machines are always faster than anyone else's.

That seems /highly/ unlikely.  Admittedly the machine I tested on is 
fairly new - less than a year old.  But it's a little NUC-style machine 
at around the $1000 price range, with a laptop processor.  The only 
thing exciting about it is 64 GB ram (I like to run a lot of things at 
the same time in different workspaces).

But I am better than some people at getting my machines to run programs 
efficiently.  I don't use Windows for such things (I happily run Windows 
on a different machine for other purposes), and I certainly don't use 
layers of OS or filesystem emulation such as WSL and expect code to run 
at maximal speed.

And as I said in an earlier post, I didn't have the files on any kind of 
disk or SSD at all - they were all in a tmpfs filesystem to eliminate 
that bottleneck.