Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rlgvax!guy
From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: Speed of read vs. fread
Message-ID: <388@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 26-Jan-85 00:15:40 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.388
Posted: Sat Jan 26 00:15:40 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 05:16:10 EST
References: <626@ihlts.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 27

> Which is faster, read/write or fread/fwrite?
> 
> I've been told that fread/fwrite is faster because
> it buffers.  On the other hand, I've been told that
> read/write is faster because (a) read always does
> a one block read-ahead if it can and (b) it avoids
> the overhead of the fread/fwrite abstraction.

a) is prunejuice; "fread" calls "read", so you get the same
read-ahead.  b) is true as long as your "read"s are the same
size as the ones that "fread" does.  The overhead of the
abstraction is MUCH lower in System V Release 2 and will
be lower in 4.3BSD (originally, "fread" was a loop containing
a "getc" macro"; it has been redone to move entire blocks of
characters from the buffer to the user directly).  Still, this
overhead is non-zero.

The point about buffering is that doing "fread" to read 16 bytes
at a time will probably be better than doing "read" to read
16 bytes.  The latter requires 64 times as many "read" calls (assuming
1024-byte standard I/O buffers), and system calls are expensive.

On 4.2BSD, the win of "fread" is even higher; the buffer size is the
same as the filesystem block size, which is usually 4096 or 8192 bytes.

	Guy Harris
	{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!