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 To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_Berber?= Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?) Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:11:09 -0500 Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <20050602180440.39567.qmail@web31706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <429F5738.505@familiehaase.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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/