5 ms·

I've personally never had any real performance issues with Cygwin. What are you doing that involves lots of forking? For me, Cygwin has always been pretty much

I've personally never had any real performance issues with Cygwin. What are you doing that involves lots of forking? For me, Cygwin has always been pretty much native-speed, its only an API translation layer.

wfunction 11y ago
> What are you doing that involves lots of forking? Running scripts? Also, try enumerating the files in a large directory hierarchy and compare it with native Windows speed (or Linux speed), it's not even comparable.
- TickleSteve 11y ago
  fair enough, it probably wont match native for that. Personally tho, speed has always been sufficient for me to never notice. I use it most days, but I don't do comparisons.
  - wfunction 11y ago
    "Won't match native" is quite the understatement. It's not a question of a 40% speed difference, more like a > 400% speed difference last time I checked.
gnoway 11y ago
I use Cygwin as my terminal environment for everything that works. Any fs operation involving lots of files (e.g. find) is slow. Copying files is slow. CIFS in particular seems much slower via //server/share in Cygwin than native \\server\share. One way to really see the latter is to try to create a git clone using the --reference option against a repo on a mapped drive; msysgit using the drive letter is OK, but cygwin git against the same repo via /cygdrive/mapped is very slow. Edit: by 'everything that works' I mean everything that interacts with the terminal in a standard way. There are some command line utilities which output to the terminal some way other than stdout, making them very difficult to use in cygwin.
nanny 11y ago
I have few "real" performance issues with Cygwin as well. However, when I perform the same tasks in gnu/linux there is a noticeable speed increase. So what I mean to say is that Cygwin's performance isn't necessarily bad, it's just not as good as the real thing.
novocaine 11y ago
GNU make. Keep in mind that in addition to the build steps, it's common to break out to sed, grep, and shell to get basic string operations done due to extremely limited capability of make itself. On cygwin, this is slow for large projects. Cygwin's forking is also temperamental. https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/highlights.html#ov-hi-process https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/highlights.html#ov-hi-proce... "In summary, current Windows implementations make it impossible to implement a perfectly reliable fork, and occasional fork failures are inevitable." I wonder how the authors of midipix propose to resolve the listed issues.

wfunction 11y ago

> What are you doing that involves lots of forking? Running scripts? Also, try enumerating the files in a large directory hierarchy and compare it with native Windows speed (or Linux speed), it's not even comparable.

TickleSteve 11y ago
fair enough, it probably wont match native for that. Personally tho, speed has always been sufficient for me to never notice. I use it most days, but I don't do comparisons.
- wfunction 11y ago
  "Won't match native" is quite the understatement. It's not a question of a 40% speed difference, more like a > 400% speed difference last time I checked.

gnoway 11y ago

I use Cygwin as my terminal environment for everything that works. Any fs operation involving lots of files (e.g. find) is slow. Copying files is slow. CIFS in particular seems much slower via //server/share in Cygwin than native \\server\share. One way to really see the latter is to try to create a git clone using the --reference option against a repo on a mapped drive; msysgit using the drive letter is OK, but cygwin git against the same repo via /cygdrive/mapped is very slow. Edit: by 'everything that works' I mean everything that interacts with the terminal in a standard way. There are some command line utilities which output to the terminal some way other than stdout, making them very difficult to use in cygwin.

nanny 11y ago

I have few "real" performance issues with Cygwin as well. However, when I perform the same tasks in gnu/linux there is a noticeable speed increase. So what I mean to say is that Cygwin's performance isn't necessarily bad, it's just not as good as the real thing.

novocaine 11y ago

GNU make. Keep in mind that in addition to the build steps, it's common to break out to sed, grep, and shell to get basic string operations done due to extremely limited capability of make itself. On cygwin, this is slow for large projects. Cygwin's forking is also temperamental. https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/highlights.html#ov-hi-process https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/highlights.html#ov-hi-proce... "In summary, current Windows implementations make it impossible to implement a perfectly reliable fork, and occasional fork failures are inevitable." I wonder how the authors of midipix propose to resolve the listed issues.