Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
X-Authentication-Warning:	hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu: khan owned process doing -bs
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:49:50 -0600 (CST)
From:	Mumit Khan <khan AT NanoTech DOT Wisc DOT EDU>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Optimizing away "ReadFile" calls when Make calls stat()
In-Reply-To:	<4.3.1.2.20010213154412.04990ba0@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.HPP.3.96.1010213154656.15708F-100000@hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:

> At 03:25 PM 2/13/2001, DJ Delorie wrote:
> >
> >Actually, it is.  I did some benchmarks using the native Win32 API
> >directly, and Linux is way faster.
> 
> 
> Any chance that you have a pointer to the results of such a test?  Just
> curious.

And I have seen results that show W2k/NTFS_5 to be at least as fast as
some of the Unix counterparts, and I trust neither (at least not w/out
more information). I also don't trust benchmark numbers of Linux/ext2fs,
because of the metadata issue, nor do I trust some of the other Unix and
W2k numbers because of other issues. *BSD and Linux folks don't believe 
each others numbers either.  Argh, Just can't win. Skeptical crisis all 
over again. 

Regards,
Mumit



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -