From: willm AT ihug DOT co DOT nz (Will Mooar) Subject: Re: B19, performance using fopen()/fclose() on FAT16 26 Dec 1998 02:26:20 -0800 Message-ID: <001e01be30b1$4ad26680$e6884fd1.cygnus.gnu-win32@monster> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "John Blanton" Cc: Just a thought - do you have any form of virus checker on your system? If so, try disabling it before running the tests. I found that NAV _severely_ impacted performance when compiling. Kind regards - Will. _______________________________ Will Mooar System Analyst willm AT ihug DOT co DOT nz ----- Original Message ----- From: Mumit Khan To: John Blanton Cc: Sent: Friday, 25 December 1998 09:18 Subject: Re: B19, performance using fopen()/fclose() on FAT16 >John Blanton writes: >> Conducting performance tests of several porting tools we noticed >> dramatically poor performance for the following case using FAT16 on >> Windows NT: > >Thanks for the testcase and the timing results. Very interesting. I >would expect a significant slowdown using Cygwin, but didn't expect >this bad. > >Here's what I get on Ppro 200, 128MB, NT SP3/FAT, no CYGWIN env var, >all binary mounts: > >Cygwin B20: > real 1m39.00s > user 0m29.00s > sys 1m4.00s > >Specifying CYGWIN=nontea drops the time a few seconds. > >MSVC > real 0m15.00s > user 0m3.00s > sys 0m10.00s > >UWIN > real 0m53.00s > user 0m17.00s > sys 0m36.00s > >> GNU-Win32 398.3 >> Linux (FAT) 6.2 >> Linux (Linux FS) 6.1 >> U/WIN 41.0 >> Win32 14.8 > >Your Cygwin time is much higher than mine for some reason. > >Regards, >Mumit > >- >For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to >"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help". > - For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".