This is the mail archive of the cygwin@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
At 11:06 AM 9/2/2002 -0500, Michael Hoffman wrote:
But the original poster wasn't just saying "Cygwin is slower than Linux" or "Cygwin is too slow". He also said: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.
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.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.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |