Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337676191@mail.sandvine.com>
From:	Don Bowman <don AT sandvine DOT com>
To:	"'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: GCC-3.1 Build Time
Date:	Sat, 11 May 2002 13:33:23 -0400
MIME-Version:	1.0

Dr. Wayne Keen" <wayne dot keen at crc dot com> wrote:
>In follow up to some recent emails on gcc build time, I used the time
>command this morning to monitor the time needed to build gcc-3.1 on a 
>2 GHz Dual Xeon machine at the office.  Here is the breakdown:

>configure took 		3 minutes, 14 seconds
>make bootstrap took 	44 minutes, 28 seconds
>make install took	1 minute, 58 seconds

I've also been looking at this, the slow 'make' and file access
times under cygwin.

The simplest test is this: take a directory with files and subdirs,
and run 'time ls -lR 1>/dev/null'. Do the same thing on e.g. BSD
or Linux. Note the extreme difference (on mine its minutes under
cygwin, seconds under BSD).
Now, to prove its not a windows issue, run a PC NFS server,
mount that same windows directory on the BSD box. Hmmm. Still faster
even over NFS over NTFS.
Conclusion: NTFS is fast enough, windows is fast enough, etc.

The underlying performance issue here must be with 'stat' and/or
'readdir' I think, there's no sub-processes being spawned, environment
passed, etc.

Any suggestions anyone?

--don

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -