Hi, On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Can you elaborate about any performance differences, especially with > cygwin? Does this make git perform reasonably on Windows, or are the > performance problems as bad as with cygwin? On the git repository, using MinGW: $ time git-rev-list next > /dev/null real 0m0.320s user 0m0.031s sys 0m0.000s $ time git-rev-list next > /dev/null real 0m0.320s user 0m0.015s sys 0m0.015s $ time git-rev-list next > /dev/null real 0m0.352s user 0m0.015s sys 0m0.000s Using cygwin: $ time git-rev-list next > /dev/null real 0m0.750s user 0m0.421s sys 0m0.140s $ time git-rev-list next > /dev/null real 0m0.750s user 0m0.374s sys 0m0.233s $ time git-rev-list next > /dev/null real 0m0.750s user 0m0.374s sys 0m0.218s IOW MinGW wins hands down with an average 0.33s vs cygwin with an average 0.75s. (I am fairly certain that you must not trust sys times.) I have no idea why, as the big show-stopper fork() is not even involved. Now, for something different: git-log. On MinGW: $ time git-log next > /dev/null real 0m1.594s user 0m0.015s sys 0m0.015s $ time git-log next > /dev/null real 0m1.562s user 0m0.031s sys 0m0.000s $ time git-log next > /dev/null real 0m1.610s user 0m0.015s sys 0m0.015s On Cygwin: $ time git-log next > /dev/null real 0m2.063s user 0m0.827s sys 0m1.031s $ time git-log next > /dev/null real 0m2.085s user 0m0.780s sys 0m1.061s $ time git-log next > /dev/null real 0m2.047s user 0m0.686s sys 0m1.171s That's a bit less obvious: 1.589s for MinGW vs. 2.065s for Cygwin. These are all hot-cache numbers, since the cold-cache performance of Windows is not easily triggered. (FWIW the first git-log on Cygwin -- which was cold-cache -- took over 10 seconds.) Ciao, Dscho - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html