Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

Sunil funtoos@yahoo.com
Thu Jun 2 18:04:00 GMT 2005


> Any favorable mention of SFU on this list had better
> be a joke. :-)

:)

but can't deny the truth. Seriously, open source on
windows can't do better than what it does(upto the
limits provided by OS) in terms of efficiency. Its
hardly at fault, the thing below it is so darn closed.
Everything on linux is so optimized for exactly the
opposite reason. One reason why I left SFU and became
cygwin was that its closed and I don't know nothing
about what's going on inside. I can even build my own
cygwin1.dll if packaged one lacks a feature because
its not POSIX. Execution speed is one aspect and being
able to build your favourite pkgs easily is another. I
can run something faster only if I can build it...:)

-Sunil
PS: just to give people here a taste of speed
difference:
machine 1: 533Mhz, 10GB 5400rpm disk, 384MB RAM, SFU
on W2K, -> build time for texinfo = 345 seconds.
machine 2: 2400Mhz, 100GB 7200rpm disk, 768MB RAM,
cygwin 1.5.17 on WinXP, -> build time for texinfo =
334 seconds.

build repeated twice to take the caching out of
picture. Please don't bash me, its just a harsh
reality of the closed source. I have chosen cygwin
anyway, so it doesn't matter.


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/



More information about the Cygwin mailing list