Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:13:29 -0500 Message-Id: <200102132213.RAA10561@envy.delorie.com> X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f From: DJ Delorie To: khan AT NanoTech DOT Wisc DOT EDU CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com In-reply-to: (message from Mumit Khan on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:49:50 -0600 (CST)) Subject: Re: Optimizing away "ReadFile" calls when Make calls stat() References: > And I have seen results that show W2k/NTFS_5 to be at least as fast as > some of the Unix counterparts, and I trust neither (at least not w/out > more information). I also don't trust benchmark numbers of Linux/ext2fs, At the time, I was testing simple things, like open(), system(), etc. I just wanted a baseline to compare against so I could guage the improvements I was working on at the time; as long as the results were consistent it didn't matter what the absolute numbers were. For example, if I could improve the performance from 10x as much as linux to only 5x as much as linux, that would be great, but I shouldn't expect that going from 5x to 2x would be as easy. One of my other comparisons was against djgpp, for example, whose performance is sensitive to 95 vs NT, but just knowing that cygwin was less than 2x the time djgpp took was useful. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple