Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Message-ID: <429F5738.505@familiehaase.de> Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 21:00:08 +0200 From: "Gerrit P. Haase" 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 CC: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?) References: <20050602180440.39567.qmail@web31706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20050602180440.39567.qmail@web31706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/