Re: A Simple Real World Benchmark for Cygwin

[Jeremy Hetzler <jeremyhetzler at earthlink dot net>]

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/