Subject: Re: MinGW port usable

From: "Shawn O. Pearce" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:56:53 -0500

Johannes Schindelin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
> > Just curious, but were these tests run with mmap(), or NO_MMAP?
> 
> Both with NO_MMAP=YesPlease.

I wonder what the difference is between NO_MMAP=Yes and NO_MMAP=
on Windows.  This is something I've never tried, but probably should
do.  I run about ~25 developers on NO_MMAP= on Windows (all NTFS)
without issue, but now I'm curious if there's an actual performance
difference for some operations.  There's no real rationale behind
my NO_MMAP= setting, other than that's how we've always used it...
 
> That said, I find the numbers quite convincing. On a (much weaker 
> equipped) Linux bux, it takes 0.65s and 1.2s, respectively.

The time difference between the MinGW and Cygwin ports of Git
is certainly an interesting one, and says good things about the
MinGW work.

We're paying a price for POSIX compatibility on Windows, and its a
pretty high one it seems.  I can't blame the Cygwin folks, they've
done a great job at trying to make the most of VMS.  But sometimes
you just need Linux (or *BSD, or Solaris).  :-)

-- 
Shawn.