X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <014f01c7af60$f8e818f0$0600a8c0@ze4427wm> From: "Aaron Gray" To: "Albrecht Schlosser" , References: <017001c7ae32$49dff3c0$0600a8c0 AT ze4427wm> <46728FA5 DOT 8010505 AT go4more DOT de> Subject: Re: Cygwin allocted time slice Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:22:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 > Aaron Gray wrote: > > Cygwin seems to only use a small amount of time slice relative to the > ammount of time slice availiable. Compiles, builds and testsuite are > relly slow compared to MinGW which takes too much time. > > > > 'time' results confirm this. Process time is about 1/4 of the total > system time. > > Are you using a dual (or more) processor system? No. > > It i very noticable on compiling and testing GCC as compared to the > same on Linux or MinGW. > > I assume: on (a) different machine(s) ? Yes. > > Is there any way to give Cygwin a bigger slice of the pie ? > > > > Say 50% or 75% ? > > Well, what I saw on a dual core machine was that make seems to use only > one processor, and therefore I got similar CPU usage (< 50%). > > Try make -j2 or make -j3 and see if you get better results. This worked > for me. I will at somepoint be able to take advantage of this :) Thanks, Aaron -- 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/