> It's unsurprising that a POSIX program ported straight to an > independently developed, properly done POSIX layer performs > better than a version of that program hacked to directly > target the platform.
On the contrary, I am somewhat surprised. Cygwin is wonderful, but there is a definite overhead to the POSIX emulation layer when it comes to being careful about the semantics. For instance, a "cp -rp" by Cygwin is noticeably slower than XCOPY or even MKS' pure-native port of "cp". I wonder if there are other factors at work here (e.g. line-ending conversion, etc. - was the Cygwin version just writing out Unix line endings (no conversion) whereas the native CVS was, or something?). Unfortunately I'm not near my repository where I can do a reasonable comparison (access over the WAN will swamp the readings), but I can try this next week and see which is faster given a level playing field. Still, either way, either Windows port of CVS will be slower than a Linux CVS. -- Shankar. _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
