Jarkko Häkkinen a écrit :
I'm getting rather similar results on my Cygwin 1.7.1, Windows 7 as evidenced
by the figures below. Upgraded from a dual core Windows XP to a quad core i7
Windows 7 causing my cygwin performance to plummet. Even the bash
auto-completion is so annoyingly sluggish that it makes the shell virtually
unusable.
For me, there's no choice between whether or not to make the transition from
XP to 7 as we're using the latest DirectX technology. Hope somebody will
figure this out.
[13:41:50 ~]$ while (true); do date; done | uniq -c
5 Tue Feb 16 14:00:09 FLEST 2010
7 Tue Feb 16 14:00:10 FLEST 2010
9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:11 FLEST 2010
9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:12 FLEST 2010
9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:13 FLEST 2010
9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:14 FLEST 2010
9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:15 FLEST 2010
9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:16 FLEST 2010
6 Tue Feb 16 14:00:17 FLEST 2010
5 Tue Feb 16 14:00:18 FLEST 2010
9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:19 FLEST 2010
prashantv wrote:
My speeds are even slower than those posted:
prash...@home [~]
$ while (true); do date; done | uniq -c
1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:50 AUSEDT 2009
1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:51 AUSEDT 2009
2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:52 AUSEDT 2009
1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:53 AUSEDT 2009
2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:54 AUSEDT 2009
2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:55 AUSEDT 2009
1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:56 AUSEDT 2009
3 Tue Jan 20 22:25:57 AUSEDT 2009
1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:58 AUSEDT 2009
2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:59 AUSEDT 2009
2 Tue Jan 20 22:26:00 AUSEDT 2009
2 Tue Jan 20 22:26:01 AUSEDT 2009
I am running cygwin 1.5.25, Windows 2008 x64 on a Intel Core 2 @ 2.13ghz.
One CPU is maxed to 100% when forking. This speed explained why opening
bash took as long as 10 seconds, and I wanted to find out why it was so
slow.
Is it possible to profile the implementation easily?
bash is not an efficient shell :
while : ; do date; done | uniq -c
5 Thu Feb 18 01:03:30 2010
8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:31 2010
8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:32 2010
9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:33 2010
8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:34 2010
9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:35 2010
8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:36 2010
5 Thu Feb 18 01:03:37 2010
let's try pdksh (well, not really more efficient) :
7 Thu Feb 18 01:03:38 2010
9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:39 2010
8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:40 2010
8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:41 2010
8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:42 2010
9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:43 2010
8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:44 2010
8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:45 2010
8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:46 2010
7 Thu Feb 18 01:03:47 2010
and ksh 93 :
8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:59 2010
7 Thu Feb 18 01:04:00 2010
12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:01 2010
12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:02 2010
12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:03 2010
12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:04 2010
12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:05 2010
12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:06 2010
12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:07 2010
12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:08 2010
ksh88 is not so bad :
7 Thu Feb 18 01:06:47 2010
6 Thu Feb 18 01:06:48 2010
10 Thu Feb 18 01:06:49 2010
9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:50 2010
9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:51 2010
10 Thu Feb 18 01:06:52 2010
9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:53 2010
9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:54 2010
8 Thu Feb 18 01:06:55 2010
9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:56 2010
tests realised under cygwin 1.7 on a Q6600 in 32 bit mode (around 30% of
cpu usage)
Cordialement,
Cyrille Lefevre
--
mailto:cyrille.lefevre-li...@laposte.net
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
