Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/09/03/00:31:56
At 11:06 AM 9/2/2002 -0500, Michael Hoffman wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Rick Richardson wrote:
>
> > Certainly, some performance degradation under CygWin could be expected
> > and tolerated. But not a factor of 30X or more. IMHO, of course.
>
>No! We should not tolerate any performance degradation under Cygwin
>WHATSOEVER. Cygwin should run faster than native Linux. Cygwin should run
>faster than native Linux on a faster computer. Cygwin running on an aging
>Windows 95 486 with automatic virus checking running should run faster
>than a brand-new dual-processor Xeon system running on Linux. If the
>developers stopped kicking dogs long enough to actually do some work, this
>would already be a reality.
But the original poster wasn't just saying "Cygwin is slower than Linux" or
"Cygwin is too slow". He also said:
>It is not entirely clear to me that my performance is representative
>of other CygWin installations. Without a benchmark, it is impossible
>for me to determine if the results I am seeing are normal for CygWin,
>or the result of some unknown as yet system or installation problem.
Which is a valid point. What is "normal" for Cygwin on given hardware, and
what is "slower than normal"? Now that we have a benchmark, we can start to
answer those questions. That's a useful thing.
--
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 -