Performance of wimlib vs. DISM
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:43 pm
A while ago - in July 2017 - I compared the performance of wimlib and DISM when creating a new backup.
Is this a known issue?
Also, I was wondering if anybody has already done some serious performance optimization on the WimLib code; i.e. not just code review but code coverage measurement using professional tools and refactoring of hot paths?
Can I assume that (most) compiler and linker optimizations are enabled when the release version of WimLib is built for Windows using the Cygwin/mingw tool chain? I assume this is the way the officially released binaries are produced.
- DISM ran for 10 minutes and produced a WIM file of 13 GB
- WimLib ran for 56 minutes and produced a WIM file of 12 GB
Is this a known issue?
Also, I was wondering if anybody has already done some serious performance optimization on the WimLib code; i.e. not just code review but code coverage measurement using professional tools and refactoring of hot paths?
Can I assume that (most) compiler and linker optimizations are enabled when the release version of WimLib is built for Windows using the Cygwin/mingw tool chain? I assume this is the way the officially released binaries are produced.