X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<50535.99.237.216.211.1245125771.squirrel@www.sidefx.com>
In-Reply-To:	<3353982C81F6441590DD8E4B4C2D0841@desktop2>
References:	<7c6dcbb9c797277cc8ffb1fc985844af AT mail DOT smartmobili DOT com> <3353982C81F6441590DD8E4B4C2D0841 AT desktop2>
Date:	Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:16:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:	Re: Optimize cygwin on recent windows version (Vista and Seven)
From:	"Edward Lam" <edward AT sidefx DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	SquirrelMail/1.4.9a
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT 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

On Mon, June 15, 2009 19:53, Sisyphus wrote:
> Here are some timings I did recently for building the mpc-0.6 library.
> On Vista and XP, (in the same version of the MSYS shell, and using the
> same
> version of MinGW's gcc) I ran:
>
> ./configure --disable-shared --enable-static CPPFLAGS=-I/usr/local/include
> LDFLAGS=-L/usr/local/lib && make && make check
>
> On linux (mdk-9.1) and cygwin, it was the same command, but without the
> CPPFLAGS and
> LDFLAGS arguments (as they're not necessary on linux and cygwin).
>
> Times taken were:
> Linux : 1.5 mimutes
> XP (mingw):  6.5 minutes
> Vista (mingw): 16.5 minutes
> Vista (cygwin): 23.25 minutes
>
> In terms of processor capacity, the Vista box should be the fastest,
> followed by the XP box, followed by the old Linux box, but clearly, OS
> considerations are well and truly overwhelming those capacities.

Are these tests on 64-bit or 32-bit Windows? See this post for example,

http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2008-09/msg00405.html

I have personally noticed a great speed difference where a slower
processor 32-bit Windows XP machine outperformed a faster processor 64-bit
Windows XP machines during just a "make clean". I tried (and failed) to
look for anything different on the machines that would account for the
vast speed disparity. Both were up to date on their security patches and
service packs. I ran cygcheck to make sure the packages used were the same
on both machines. I looked at the task manager to ensure there were no
other processes running on the slower 64-bit machine that could also be
using the computer. Neither of them had antivirus software. Note also that
this is both on Windows XP so it's not anything related to Vista at all.
Nothing. Cygwin is just way slower on 64-bit Windows.

For another performance related thread illustrating the speed difference
between forking (and not):

http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2009-04/msg00718.html

Once we're into forking, see this old performance complaint:

http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2006-09/msg00023.html

Note the times at the bottom of the post. There's a significant speed
difference between snapshot 20060309 and 20060318 (using binary mounts).

I used to use Cygwin B20.1 in the day and it has always seemed faster to
me. Mind you, it also crashed more though. :)

Regards,
-Edward


--
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 -