X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<45E876FA.7401B017@dessent.net>
Date:	Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:11:54 -0800
From:	Brian Dessent <brian AT dessent DOT net>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Cygwin speed
References:	<45E86FFD DOT 7060301 AT princeton DOT edu>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
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

Vinod Gupta wrote:

> Cygwin was a slow by a factor of 3x. Is that normal?

Yes.  Emulation of POSIX functions which do not exist on Windows is
expensive.  Fork is especially bad, which is all you're really testing
there.

Brian

--
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 -