Hi, I setup a simple test to see how to lilypond takes to complete operating on a file, on cygwin compared to on colinux.
Platform this test is ran on is on a PIII 800MHz, 359MB ram, running Windows 2k. Cygwin is installed selecting the Lilypond 2.4.2-1 package. coLinux (0.6.2) runs the Debian-3.0r2.ext3-mit-backports.1gb image, and installed a stable Lilypond 2.4.2. Lilypond is ran using the coLinux shell, not under X. The following tests files were taken from mutopiaproject intermezzo.ly - http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/piece-info.cgi?id=535 bwv851a.ly - http://www.mutopiaproject.org/ftp/BachJS/BWV851/bwv851a/bwv851a.ly enchanted-island.ly - http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/piece-info.cgi?id=536 op149-19.ly -http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/piece-info.cgi?id=533 A script was use to run the test. # script start (run.sh) date > log.txt lilypond file.ly date >> log.txt # script end Time when lilypond starts and ends is recorded in the log file. Here are the results. 1. intermezzo.ly cygwin: start: Tue Mar 15 16:33:45 MPST 2005 end: Tue Mar 15 16:36:43 MPST 2005 elapse: 2:58 colinux: start: Tue Mar 15 16:41:41 HKT 2005 end: Tue Mar 15 16:42:49 HKT 2005 elapse: 1:07 2. bwv851a.ly cygwin: start: Tue Mar 15 16:46:41 MPST 2005 end: Tue Mar 15 16:47:43 MPST 2005 elapse: 1:02 colinux: start: Tue Mar 15 16:51:56 HKT 2005 end: Tue Mar 15 16:52:18 HKT 2005 elapse: 0:22 3. enchanted-island.ly cygwin: start: Tue Mar 15 17:07:10 MPST 2005 end: Tue Mar 15 17:07:34 MPST 2005 elapse: 0:24 colinux: start: Tue Mar 15 17:10:05 HKT 2005 end: Tue Mar 15 17:10:35 HKT 2005 elapse: 0:30 4. op149-19.ly cygwin: start: Tue Mar 15 17:14:50 MPST 2005 end: Tue Mar 15 17:15:44 MPST 2005 elapse: 0:54 colinux: start: Tue Mar 15 16:41:41 HKT 2005 end: Tue Mar 15 16:42:49 HKT 2005 elapse: 1:08 cygwin total: 5:18 colinux total: 3:07 Conclusion and Comments. Lilypond in Colinux does seems to run faster than in Cygwin. Statistically, lilypond in colinux runs 42% faster than cygwin (although some runs are faster in cygwin). Of course, the sample data is too little, and my test could be inaccurate in many ways. Another interesting factor is the time to get into the shell. for cygwin bash shell, i took about 4s to load. for colinux, i took about 12s (plus u need to login with your username and password). An werid observation I saw, lilypond in cygwin will take about 20+Mb of ram. In colinux, it seems to use only about 5Mb of ram, although I allocated 192MB of memory to the guest machine. To the end of this test, I have no preferences to promote cygwin over colinux or vice-versa. coLinux have the flexiblity to run more like a linux os, but cygwin is much simpler to configure and install. Both have their pros and cons, so I leave it to the reader to try both and decide. I'm open to any comments, or any test results you might come up with. Joshua Koo _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
