From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26475 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2002 04:31:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 26467 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2002 04:31:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net) (207.217.120.50) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Sep 2002 04:31:41 -0000 Received: from dialup-65.59.79.36.dial1.stamford1.level3.net ([65.59.79.36] helo=teller.earthlink.net) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17m5Lo-0002Og-00 for cygwin@cygwin.com; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 21:31:41 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20020903002326.00a6d2c0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: jeremyhetzler@mail.earthlink.net Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 21:31:00 -0000 To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Jeremy Hetzler Subject: Re: A Simple Real World Benchmark for Cygwin In-Reply-To: References: <20020902101958.A27819@mn.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2 At 11:06 AM 9/2/2002 -0500, Michael Hoffman wrote: >On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Rick Richardson wrote: > > > Certainly, some performance degradation under CygWin could be expected > > and tolerated. But not a factor of 30X or more. IMHO, of course. > >No! We should not tolerate any performance degradation under Cygwin >WHATSOEVER. Cygwin should run faster than native Linux. Cygwin should run >faster than native Linux on a faster computer. Cygwin running on an aging >Windows 95 486 with automatic virus checking running should run faster >than a brand-new dual-processor Xeon system running on Linux. If the >developers stopped kicking dogs long enough to actually do some work, this >would already be a reality. But the original poster wasn't just saying "Cygwin is slower than Linux" or "Cygwin is too slow". He also said: >It is not entirely clear to me that my performance is representative >of other CygWin installations. Without a benchmark, it is impossible >for me to determine if the results I am seeing are normal for CygWin, >or the result of some unknown as yet system or installation problem. Which is a valid point. What is "normal" for Cygwin on given hardware, and what is "slower than normal"? Now that we have a benchmark, we can start to answer those questions. That's a useful thing. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/