Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:08:31 -0800 From: Geoffrey Noer To: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Cygwin performance (was [ANN] PW32 the...) Message-ID: <20000313180831.I8690@cygnus.com> References: <20000313180414 DOT 15800 DOT qmail AT web107 DOT yahoomail DOT com> <20000313180414 DOT 15800 DOT qmail AT web107 DOT yahoomail DOT com> <9886 DOT 000313 AT is DOT lg DOT ua> <4 DOT 3 DOT 2 DOT 20000313181326 DOT 00b8a590 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <20000313185555 DOT B24233 AT cygnus DOT com> <38CD87BE DOT B69B05A7 AT sigma6 DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <38CD87BE.B69B05A7@sigma6.com>; from Jeff Sturm on Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 07:28:46PM -0500 On Mon, Mar 13, 2000, Jeff Sturm wrote: [...] > Don't be so sure. I've used GCC on Interix for a while... let's just > say that Cygwin rocks. > > The Interix product relies heavily on the POSIX subsystem, instead of > shared memory as Cygwin does. For many of my user applications the > subsystem process actually consumes more CPU time than the application! [...] Interesting. We have been trying to improve (and succeeding in improving) Cygwin's runtime performance but that's been done comparing Cygwin to Cygwin-past and not so much by doing benchmarks against other systems I think. Have people run any benchmarks comparing Cygwin, Uwin, NuTcracker, Interix, anything else out there? -- Geoffrey Noer Email: noer AT cygnus DOT com Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company http://www.redhat.com/ -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com