This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Copy-on-write fork
Repeat after me: don't open old threads.
oops ...
didn't know that rule
after which time is a thread an old thread?
However I'll let you off this once, because you are using a newsreader and
I've made the same mistake before.
Thx
If you think copy on write is faster, then feel free to do some tests. A
website with some nice pretty graphs, and source code would be great.
I can
send you some code for starters, I'm sure Chris Faylor has some around
too.
It may well be that both of us were simply not doing the right tests.
i'm a developer too, but i've haven't got much time for this, and i'm
not much into C-programming anymore.
if i had the time, i would be pleased to do it,
but for now, i'm just a cygwin-"user".
My tests were based on timing a single process that allocated a large
region
of memory, then forked in a loop. Each forked process touched the memory
allocated earlier by overwriting it with a random value.
OK, now one would need statistics, how much of the fork()ed-memory is
overwritten usually etc.
i just wondered, how you compared the results of the time-command?
it might be the case, that a program consumes more real-time, but less
cpu-time. less cpu-time could be preferred, but real-time is more
important from the user's point-of-view.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/