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@dessent.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Cygwin speed
References: <45E86FFD.7060301@princeton.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.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/