Slow performance with new 3GHz Machine using FlushFileBuffers

Hi,

I have a new machine with Intel Desktop Board D865GBF. 3GHz. A simple
program like this (I explain later) takes TEN times more to complete
than in my older machine with 1.7GHz, D850MV.

Same system (Windows 2000), same installed software, same hard disk
(IDE), same configuration.

I have tried with other hard disks, same result.

Note: if I withdraw the FlushFileBuffers function call, I have a
little better result in my new machine. I need to use this call or
something similar to asure data saving. (at least in the system's
buffer)

I've updated the last Intel BIOS without succesful result. I think the
disk is working fine, all benchmarks with the hard disk are so good in
my new machine as in the old.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Here the program:

#include "stdafx.h"
#include stdio.h
#include io.h
#include windows.h

int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
FILE *m_file;
unsigned long i;
HANDLE hfile;

m_file = fopen ("testf", "r+b");
if (!m_file)
m_file = fopen ("testf", "w+b");
if (!m_file)
return 1;
hfile = (HANDLE) _get_osfhandle (_fileno (m_file));
for (i=0; i 20000;++i)
{
fwrite ("d", 1, 1, m_file);
FlushFileBuffers (hfile);
}
return 0;
}

Old machine: 2 seconds.
New machine: 20 seconds.

if im not mistaken, the standard guarentees all file handles to be closed
upon program exist, and subsequently all buffers will be flushed.

"Pedro Salazar" wrote in message
om...
Hi,

I have a new machine with Intel Desktop Board D865GBF. 3GHz. A simple
program like this (I explain later) takes TEN times more to complete
than in my older machine with 1.7GHz, D850MV.

Same system (Windows 2000), same installed software, same hard disk
(IDE), same configuration.

I have tried with other hard disks, same result.

Note: if I withdraw the FlushFileBuffers function call, I have a
little better result in my new machine. I need to use this call or
something similar to asure data saving. (at least in the system's
buffer)

I've updated the last Intel BIOS without succesful result. I think the
disk is working fine, all benchmarks with the hard disk are so good in
my new machine as in the old.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Here the program:

#include "stdafx.h"
#include stdio.h
#include io.h
#include windows.h

int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
FILE *m_file;
unsigned long i;
HANDLE hfile;

m_file = fopen ("testf", "r+b");
if (!m_file)
m_file = fopen ("testf", "w+b");
if (!m_file)
return 1;
hfile = (HANDLE) _get_osfhandle (_fileno (m_file));
for (i=0; i 20000;++i)
{
fwrite ("d", 1, 1, m_file);
FlushFileBuffers (hfile);
}
return 0;
}

Old machine: 2 seconds.
New machine: 20 seconds.

s/exist/exit

if im not mistaken, the standard guarentees all file handles to be closed
upon program exist, and subsequently all buffers will be flushed.

Pedro Salazar wrote:

Hi,

I have a new machine with Intel Desktop Board D865GBF. 3GHz. A simple
program like this (I explain later) takes TEN times more to complete
than in my older machine with 1.7GHz, D850MV.

On my Linux machine, it doesn't even compile. Please leave comp.lang.c and
comp.lang.c++ off your list of crossposts when discussing platform-specific
code. Thanks.

--
Richard Heathfield :
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

Pedro Salazar wrote:

I have a new machine with Intel Desktop Board D865GBF. 3GHz. A simple
program like this (I explain later) takes TEN times more to complete
than in my older machine with 1.7GHz, D850MV.

Same system (Windows 2000), same installed software, same hard disk
(IDE), same configuration.

.... snip ...

#include "stdafx.h"
^^^^^^^^ Unknown file

#include stdio.h
#include io.h
^^^^ Non standard file
#include windows.h
^^^^^^^^^ Non-standard file

int main(int argc, char* argv[])

This is neither a C nor a C++ program, as defined for those
newsgroups. They deal ONLY with ISO standard, fully portable,
programs. Follow-ups set.

--
Chuck F ) )
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
http://cbfalconer.home.att.net USE worldnet address!

Pedro Salazar wrote:

I have a new machine with Intel Desktop Board D865GBF. 3GHz.

A simple program like this (I explain later)
takes TEN times [longer] to complete
than in my older machine with 1.7GHz, D850MV.

Same system (Windows 2000), same installed software,
same hard disk (IDE), same configuration.

I have tried with other hard disks, same result.

Note: if I withdraw the FlushFileBuffers function call,
I have a little better result in my new machine.

But not TEN times better?

I need to use this call or something similar

Like fflush(m_file)

to [en]sure data saving (at least in the system's buffer).

I've updated the last Intel BIOS without successful result.
I think the disk is working fine, all benchmarks

But *not* hard disk drive benchmarks?

with the hard disk are [as] good in my new machine as in the old.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Here the program:

#include "stdafx.h"
#include stdio.h
#include io.h
#include windows.h

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {

FILE* m_file = fopen("testf", "r+b");
if (!m_file)
m_file = fopen("testf", "w+b");
if (!m_file)
return 1;
HANDLE hfile = (HANDLE)_get_osfhandle(_fileno(m_file));
for (unsigned int i=0; i 20000;++i) {
fwrite("d", 1, 1, m_file);
FlushFileBuffers(hfile);
}
return 0;
}

Old machine: 2 seconds.
New machine: 20 seconds.

There is *nothing* wrong with the above program
(except that you write one character at a time to your disk drive).
Most probably, you haven't configured your new system
to take advantage of the disk cache
the way that your your old system did.

In article ,
(Pedro Salazar) wrote:

Note: if I withdraw the FlushFileBuffers function call, I have a
little better result in my new machine. I need to use this call or
something similar to asure data saving. (at least in the system's
buffer)

I think you should rethink your strategies for saving data.

You should also rethink your strategies of posting stuff that is
completely off-topic in at least three of the four newsgroups.

Richard Heathfield wrote in message ...
Pedro Salazar wrote:

Hi,

I have a new machine with Intel Desktop Board D865GBF. 3GHz. A simple
program like this (I explain later) takes TEN times more to complete
than in my older machine with 1.7GHz, D850MV.

On my Linux machine, it doesn't even compile. Please leave comp.lang.c and
comp.lang.c++ off your list of crossposts when discussing platform-specific
code. Thanks.

Thank you too, I was hoping someone with experience in C and Windows
2000 could give me another way to get the same result. If this is not
the place to search that advice please tell me where. Thanks.

In article , psalazar@datatec-
ec.com says...
Richard Heathfield wrote in message ...
Pedro Salazar wrote:

Hi,

I have a new machine with Intel Desktop Board D865GBF. 3GHz. A simple
program like this (I explain later) takes TEN times more to complete
than in my older machine with 1.7GHz, D850MV.

On my Linux machine, it doesn't even compile. Please leave comp.lang.c and
comp.lang.c++ off your list of crossposts when discussing platform-specific
code. Thanks.

Thank you too, I was hoping someone with experience in C and Windows
2000 could give me another way to get the same result. If this is not
the place to search that advice please tell me where. Thanks.

Something in the comp.os.ms-windows.* hierarchy is a good place to start.

--
Randy Howard
2reply remove FOOBAR