Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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:	<429F5738.505@familiehaase.de>
Date:	Thu, 02 Jun 2005 21:00:08 +0200
From:	"Gerrit P. Haase" <gerrit AT familiehaase DOT de>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Sunil <funtoos AT yahoo DOT com>
CC:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
References:	<20050602180440 DOT 39567 DOT qmail AT web31706 DOT mail DOT mud DOT yahoo DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<20050602180440.39567.qmail@web31706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

Sunil wrote:

> machine 1: 533Mhz, 10GB 5400rpm disk, 384MB RAM, SFU
> on W2K, -> build time for texinfo = 345 seconds.
> machine 2: 2400Mhz, 100GB 7200rpm disk, 768MB RAM,
> cygwin 1.5.17 on WinXP, -> build time for texinfo =
> 334 seconds.

-> 345 seconds vs. 334 seconds

So actually, cygwin is faster than SFU, isn't it?


Gerrit
-- 
=^..^=

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -