X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:47:49 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: R: Cygwin 1.7.7 fork/exec performance MUCH slower than 1.5.25 Message-ID: <20100930134749.GD20438@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <533759 DOT 75961 DOT qm AT web25504 DOT mail DOT ukl DOT yahoo DOT com> <4CA48C58 DOT 1020004 AT sidefx DOT com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CA48C58.1020004@sidefx.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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 Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 09:10:48AM -0400, Edward Lam wrote: >> testing on /tmp/benchmark with XPS P2 >> >> cygwin 1.7.8s 20100924 > >You're testing on the latest snapshot against his cygwin 1.7.7 results. >This gives me hope that Cygwin can become faster because Sagi Ben-Akiva >was willing to track down the cause of the slowdown [1]. Last I read, >it's not clear whether the latest CVS changes are faster though [2]. >However, it's probably worth trying out the 20100926 snapshot. > >We haven't mentioned yet whether we are running under 32-bit or 64-bit >Windows. It would be useful to know whether the problem only affects >64-bit Windows or not. Looking at the code changes, I would have thought >it would equally affect 32-bit Windows. 32-bit Windows is basically unchanged. -- 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