Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020501115056.02c26078@pop3.cris.com>
X-Sender: rrschulz AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 12:01:07 -0700
To: Ken Faiczak <kfaiczak AT SANDVINE DOT com>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Randall R Schulz <rrschulz AT cris DOT com>
Subject: Re: FW: trying to understand poor performance of make + cygwin
  on W2K
In-Reply-To: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C8533775DB90@mail.sandvine.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Ken,

What is the relative CPU usage as derived from the output of running your 
make under the "time" command?

I'm guessing it's very low (assuming that there are no other interfering 
processes competing for system resources).

If so, it suggests that the make command is triggering a significant number 
of file sharing probes that go unanswered and hence must time out before 
the process that caused them can continue.

Typically, this happens when string manipulation in make yields path names 
that begin with a double slash, the indicator of a UNC name under Windows 
(but just a plain old absolute path name under Unix)

--
Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA


At 05:34 2002-05-01, Ken Faiczak wrote:

>I'm trying gain some performance for our build process (cygwin on win2k) 
>and have compared it to the same make on linux
>
>If I completely build our tree (about then rerun the make from the top it 
>takes 9.5 seconds on linux
>
>if I do the same test on the same machine running (machine P3-500 512MB) 
>win2k +cygwin 1.3.9 +make (3.79.1) it takes 3.5 minutes
>
>so 210 seconds versus 9 seconds. all its doing is recursing down the tree, 
>testing the dependancies and determining it has nothing to do, so its not 
>compiling anything its all make +cygwin, I think (ie no gcc invoked anywhere)
>
>any ideas on what to try? is this an issue with the cygwin fork() 
>implementation?? is this as good as it gets
>
>ken


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/