This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: apache problems gone with 1.50

Stipe Tolj <> wrote in
in gmane.os.cygwin on Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:18 +0200:

Andrew DeFaria <>:
> > This is good to hear. Perhaps I will switch from Apache for Windows ->
> > Apache under Cygwin. Only problem is I also trying to move my web site
> > over to a Linux box instead - which makes this all kinda moot. However I
> > do have a friend who wishes to host his web site on a Windows box and I
> > am contemplating using Cygwin for most services. If Apache under Cygwin
> > works well with 1.5.0 then perhaps I'll just go that way. I wonder if
> > anybody has measured the speed difference between Apache for Windows and
> > Apache under Cygwin...

> I did some time ago. It was almost 35-40% slower on Apache for Cygwin
> then his native (win32) counterpart.
> Plain html file requests, no php or any other "magic".

Andrew might want to consider compiling Cygwin-Apache with the native
Winsock option. This way it still lives in the Cygwin file system
space so has the POSIX/Linux style configuration files but bypasses
the Cygwin Berkeley->Winsock socket API translation. Apparently this

(But I suspect the majority of the performance difference Stipe has
found is the use of threads in the native Windows version against
forking child processes in the *X versions which is a more expensive

Sam Edge

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]