Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:25:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To: Sunil <funtoos AT yahoo DOT com>
cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
In-Reply-To: <20050602180440.39567.qmail@web31706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.61.0506021422260.10282@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <20050602180440 DOT 39567 DOT qmail AT web31706 DOT mail DOT mud DOT yahoo DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Sunil wrote:

> > Any favorable mention of SFU on this list had better
> > be a joke. :-)
>
> :)
>
> but can't deny the truth. Seriously, open source on
> windows can't do better than what it does(upto the
> limits provided by OS) in terms of efficiency. Its
> hardly at fault, the thing below it is so darn closed.
> Everything on linux is so optimized for exactly the
> opposite reason. One reason why I left SFU and became
> cygwin was that its closed and I don't know nothing
> about what's going on inside. I can even build my own
> cygwin1.dll if packaged one lacks a feature because
> its not POSIX. Execution speed is one aspect and being
> able to build your favourite pkgs easily is another. I
> can run something faster only if I can build it...:)
>
> -Sunil
> PS: just to give people here a taste of speed
> difference:
> machine 1: 533Mhz, 10GB 5400rpm disk, 384MB RAM, SFU
> on W2K, -> build time for texinfo = 345 seconds.
> machine 2: 2400Mhz, 100GB 7200rpm disk, 768MB RAM,
> cygwin 1.5.17 on WinXP, -> build time for texinfo =
> 334 seconds.
>
> build repeated twice to take the caching out of
> picture. Please don't bash me, its just a harsh
> reality of the closed source. I have chosen cygwin
> anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Heh.  Ok, I'll tcsh you.  A determined person (especially one who had
admitted to being able to build the Cygwin DLL from source) would try to
strace or profile the run to see where the bottlenecks are.  Since it's
all open source, you could even contribute performance fixes (or a sound
analysis based on facts, which is usually also appreciated).

Of course, to confirm the facts, one would need to run both experiments on
the same machine first, to make sure there really *is* a performance
difference.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT

--
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/