X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 17:17:13 -0800 From: Christopher Layne To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin speed Message-ID: <20070305011713.GG6734@ns1.anodized.com> References: <45E86FFD DOT 7060301 AT princeton DOT edu> <45E876FA DOT 7401B017 AT dessent DOT net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45E876FA.7401B017@dessent.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Assp-Spam-Prob: 0.00000 X-Assp-Whitelisted: Yes X-Assp-Envelope-From: clayne AT ns1 DOT anodized DOT com X-Assp-Intended-For: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 11:11:54AM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote: > Vinod Gupta wrote: > > > Cygwin was a slow by a factor of 3x. Is that normal? > > Yes. Emulation of POSIX functions which do not exist on Windows is > expensive. Fork is especially bad, which is all you're really testing > there. Where is the *continual* fork in his script btw? -cl -- 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/