X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <53049.99.237.216.211.1245894823.squirrel@www.sidefx.com> In-Reply-To: <53046.99.237.216.211.1245894582.squirrel@www.sidefx.com> References: <4A3FCCBD DOT 70101 AT cygwin DOT com> <4A401CF4 DOT 6050202 AT cygwin DOT com> <4A405B7D DOT 7020700 AT cygwin DOT com> <4A411665 DOT 1040300 AT cygwin DOT com> <4A4167A4 DOT 4090900 AT gmail DOT com> <4A428460 DOT 4000402 AT cygwin DOT com> <4A428B01 DOT 5010903 AT sidefx DOT com> <4A429ABE DOT 8080201 AT cygwin DOT com> <53046 DOT 99 DOT 237 DOT 216 DOT 211 DOT 1245894582 DOT squirrel AT www DOT sidefx DOT com> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:53:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Slow/sluggish response ("system" task at 50%) From: "Edward Lam" To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 PS. So I went ahead and repeated the tr test on an older (Intel Core 2 Quad 2.66 GHz) machine with cygwin 1.5 on Windows *32-bit*: $ time -p for ((i=1; i<100; i++)); do var=$(echo $i | tr [a-z] [A-Z]); done real 2.64 user 6.56 sys 1.85 We're talking about a difference between an Intel processor ONE GENERATION OLDER, on an older version of cygwin, yet being a few times FASTER. On Wed, June 24, 2009 21:49, Edward Lam wrote: > On Wed, June 24, 2009 17:29, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >> Sure, we all know that Cygwin provides Linux emulation and suffers some >> overhead for it. But timings from an individual machine can be >> misleading. >> Running this through multiple times for both Mingw and Cygwin 1.7 on my >> similarly equipped machine, I see Cygwin is somewhere between 1.7 and >> 2.25 >> times slower. Whether yours or my result is more typical, I can't say. >> But as you noted, neither data set provides much justification for the >> results reported. > > Larry, > > Are you on 32-bit Windows or 64-bit Windows? I've noted on this mailing > list earlier that there are large speed differences between the two. I > wonder which platform Gene is on. The tr test results are consistent on > Windows 64-bit for me. > > I don't quite understand what MINGW32 is doing that makes it ~2 times > faster than cygwin. > > -Edward > > > > -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple