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
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_Berber?= <rberber AT prodigy DOT net DOT mx>
Subject:	Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
Date:	Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:11:09 -0500
Lines:	17
Message-ID:	<d7nou6$bie$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:	<20050602180440 DOT 39567 DOT qmail AT web31706 DOT mail DOT mud DOT yahoo DOT com> <429F5738 DOT 505 AT familiehaase DOT de>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
In-Reply-To:	<429F5738.505@familiehaase.de>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> 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?

Not really.  It's 334 on a 2.4 GHz P4 vs 345 on a 533 MHz P3.
-- 
René Berber


--
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 -