This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: A Simple Real World Benchmark for Cygwin
- From: Jeremy Hetzler <jeremyhetzler at earthlink dot net>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 00:33:55 -0700
- Subject: Re: A Simple Real World Benchmark for Cygwin
- References: <20020902101958.A27819@mn.rr.com>
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.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html