Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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: <3F957E0D.2060405@tlinx.org> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:42:21 -0700 From: "Linda W." Organization: what's organization? User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030916 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en-ca, en-gb, en-nz, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: cygwin performance Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Has anyone done any testing on performance of cygwin utils over their native win counterparts? The one that bothers me the most is the performance of cygwin "Find" and the windows 'find'. If I'm just looking for filenames (find /c/ -name \*.wav) vs. looking for *.wav in windows find GUI, the performance difference is very large (maybe 8-10x?). Is this unavoidable because the way cygwin does emulation or can optimizations be performed that would benefit all programs (not just find). Even using 'perl' over combo's of cat|tr|sed|grep|more is significantly faster to almost make the old unix standard scripting commands near worthless (I've gotten more efficient at 1-line perl scripts ala (perl -e '....'). Perhaps it is unavoidable, but I see things like find doing 2 'opens' / file when it is searching for files...can't it just do a 'stat' of some nature? does it need to do an open, let alone 2? Just wondering.... tnx, -linda -- ---> A software Engineer for CA governer? <--- ---> Georgy Russell for CA governor <--- ---> http://www.georgyforgov.com <--- -- 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/