From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94969 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2017 16:49:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 94947 invoked by uid 89); 2 Nov 2017 16:49:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Stephen, wifi, WiFi, accounts X-HELO: mail-lf0-f48.google.com Received: from mail-lf0-f48.google.com (HELO mail-lf0-f48.google.com) (209.85.215.48) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 16:48:57 +0000 Received: by mail-lf0-f48.google.com with SMTP id a132so182236lfa.7 for ; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 09:48:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=e2k0KFVx6q6kcVmbShmLM7S4r8J0lkulJ0z7YfD34D8=; b=o4BSyYpVXrvaHZ07N/1O9KnsAGnXH45gYcG+367l/QoG2RVSet2WgRwVQxVsEtRxo4 9UQSHgU4fX5AdWn9VbJMbofloIXgybcNLayO2DsSdwnMmQWCYUOsegqly+E8mQeLKXCO hAaaJBWORWw4bkRiICAXzsll9DmmgrwkIKfseLwrgVsONOpQV5T8JXMlAr4V6BNQVRsZ HrlY0B+Y7FF85ImFg/oK7Kc34SMibNCPaEGSRaTR1OF86B3DPdgUn9NDfpG9wMnj12Os NW8lZBpEMcz4StPCuzSJfBodJExs5YPT/Kxmr/IOH088Lh+XMyfIIGBvblVFz8qmpHJI D3Jw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaU9RXzFlzzo7SeA17WLAxRKkTt9zGeCpLx7cTirBron9LumA11L TCsuYDEycEXIbVBiOBNNyHwCPqYTA/fDg7NuhPZGYQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+RhZyOuAhmqnwVNes3TEzsnB46I614uvaTJAyat5zyp2dh+iuOeWDQNMeOx42rSuHWRFP2f30n/bcyMpOZD3qw= X-Received: by 10.46.34.1 with SMTP id i1mr1613092lji.133.1509641335038; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 09:48:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.102.1 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 09:48:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <01be7b8a-e504-7e5c-a03c-17a9657c5aff@gmail.com> From: Stephen John Smoogen Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 16:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Cygwin on Win10 much slower than Win7 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg00040.txt.bz2 On 2 November 2017 at 12:44, Nellis, Kenneth wrote: > From: cyg Simple >> On 11/2/2017 9:36 AM, Erik Bray wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Nellis, Kenneth wrote: >> >> Since migrating from a Windows 7 laptop to one with Windows 10, I've >> >> noticed a significant speed decrease in opening a mintty/bash window >> >> from about 0.5s to 3.5s. >> >> >> >> I've narrowed it down to two bottlenecks in .bash_profile: >> >> to "cygpath" and "source". >> >> >> >> Each invocation of cygpath on Win10 takes about 0.12s while on Win7 >> >> takes only 0.016s. Both are running 64-bit Cygwin 2.9.0, and cygpath >> >> version 2.9.0. >> >> >> >> The files being sourced are the same, but for example, one file, >> >> .bash_aliases, only contains alias statements and a few variable >> >> assignments. On Win7, "time" says it takes 0.000s, but on Win10 it >> >> takes 0.023s. >> >> >> >> The Win7 CPU is "i7-4600M @ 2.90 GHz 2.90 GHz" while the >> >> Win10 CPU is "i7-6600U @ 2.60 GHz 2.81 GHz". I can't imagine this >> >> difference accounts for a 10x speed difference. Also the >> >> Win10 machine has an SSD compared to the Win7 machine's SCSI hard >> >> disk, which would favor the Win10 machine. >> >> >> >> I was wondering if anyone else noticed such a thing or could account >> >> for this speed difference. Can I simply blame Windows 10? >> > >> > There could be a real issue here, but for what it's worth I haven't >> > noticed such extreme slowdown. But I don't have a Windows 7 machine >> > to compare to. I upgrade the one I'm on now from Windows 7 to Windows >> > 10 over a year ago, so if there ever was a difference maybe I just got >> > use to it and didn't notice. >> > >> >> Maybe a network drive connection timeout issue. Are all of the drives >> that were mapped in Win7 still reachable in Win10? >> >> > I don't recall any major issues when I first upgraded either though >> > =C2=AF\_(=E3=83=84)_/=C2=AF >> > >> >> I don't recall any either. >> >> -- >> cyg Simple > > Yes, I dismounted all but one and same network drive on both machines, > and got the same results. The (faster) Win7 machine's network drive is > connected over WiFi while the (slower) Win10 machine over Gbit Ethernet, > which would seem to favor the slower machine. I hadn't mentioned that > the timing tests were all performed on my internal C: drives, so don't > think that network drives would be a factor. One thing that might also help is how to duplicate what you are testing. Even without having network drives etc it could be useful for people to see if they are seeing speed differences or if there is something else. > --Ken Nellis > --=20 Stephen J Smoogen. -- 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