Re: Windows port?

[Jason Bacon <outpaddling%yahoo.com@localhost>]

I reran the bookstrap under "time".  Subtract a little from the totals 
to account for my response times to answer questions posed by 
auto-pkgsrc-setup.  Also note that auto-pkgsrc-setup times include 
creating a boostrap kit with both the source tree and installation 
directories.

WSL: ~104 minutes total, 16 minutes just to unpack.

FreeBSD running under HyperV: 21:47 total

Unpacking was quite slow under HyperV as well, but GNU configured 
scripts whizzed along at about native speed, on the order of a dozen 
checks / sec vs  ~1 / sec under WSL.  Compiles were much faster in the 
VM than in WSL as well.

I would hypothesize that WSL has a fork() bottleneck similar to Cygwin.

I suspect your much bigger RAM pool might explain some of the better 
performance on your end.

On 05/27/18 09:34, Chavdar Ivanov wrote:
> It is an Intel Core i7-6700HQ@2.6GHz, 16GB memory, SanDisk 
> SD7SN6S-512GB SSD(SATA), running build 17134.81 (v. 1803, a.k.a. the 
> April update). Perhaps my expectations were not very high, I didn't 
> measure the time taken precisely enough, but it seemed the extraction 
> took most of the time. I have since tried to run some benchmarks; 
> couldn't wait for filebench to complete (maybe I've selected the wrong 
> configuration, but I suspect it was worse than that), bonnie++ ran 
> though, with a result which seemed to me the reverse to what is in 
> that discussion - it completed much faster when the work directory was 
> /mnt/c/Temp than when it was just /tmp. The resulting figures  were 
> not conclusive - some of the metrics favoured /tmp, some - 
> /mnt/c/Temp, e.g. random file deletion was much faster when crossing 
> the /mnt boundary.
>
> The discussion in that thread was quite illuminating with respect to 
> the problems Microsoft developers have with WSL, and, to be honest, it 
> would be harsh to expect much more. It, after all, was thought of as a 
> means of keeping developers stay with Windows while using a number of 
> open source technologies, not for actual deployment in the wild.
>
> Chavdar
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2018 at 15:02 Jason Bacon <outpaddling%yahoo.com@localhost 
> <mailto:outpaddling%yahoo.com@localhost>> wrote:
>
>
>     What are your hardware specs?  I suspect you have both a faster
>     machine
>     and more patience than I do.
>
>     I agree that WSL and Cygwin are fast enough for many purposes.
>     wouldn't want to build gcc under WSL on the machine I have, though.
>
>     For comparison, I ran auto-pkgsrc-setup on 3 identical machines
>     running
>     different Unix OSs.  These are old PowerEdge 1920 servers, 4-core
>     Xeon
>     5160 3.0GHz, 16G RAM.
>
>     CentOS MD-RAID mirror      6:16
>     FreeBSD Root-on-ZFS          5:57
>     NetBSD PERC RAID              12:56 (I'd like to know what the
>     bottleneck was here, I'd expect NetBSD to be on par with the others)
>
>     zile build on NetBSD            7:10
>     ....