delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Recipient: | archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com |
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: | No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 |
X-Spam-Check-By: | sourceware.org |
Message-ID: | <4A9EB7E9.9030508@bopp.net> |
Date: | Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:22:33 -0500 |
From: | Jeremy Bopp <jeremy AT bopp DOT net> |
User-Agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Subject: | Re: Simple bash script is slow to execute - appears to be time spent starting commands like ls |
References: | <E1Miu9g-00033d-0h AT elasmtp-kukur DOT atl DOT sa DOT earthlink DOT net> |
In-Reply-To: | <E1Miu9g-00033d-0h@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net> |
X-IsSubscribed: | yes |
Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
List-Id: | <cygwin.cygwin.com> |
List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Archive: | <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/> |
List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs> |
Sender: | cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com |
Mail-Followup-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
David Tazartes wrote: > Let's say we focus on the echo | cut slowness I mentioned earlier. This is > independent of the CWD and doesn't cause the explorer.exe spike but is still > 200 times slower on my Vista laptop than on a low-powered Linux server. If > we correct this problem, I'm pretty confident the time per loop will go way > down. How about we try to boil this down a little further? Try running the following on your various systems and compare the results: time for n in $(seq 1 10000); do true; done I'm hopeful that this should help eliminate IO as a bottleneck in your comparisons. Maybe someone else has a better suggestion. If you still see a difference in performance of a similar magnitude as you do with the echo | cut case, this might argue for fork being your problem. I can't say whether or not what you're seeing is really expected for fork though. All I know is that fork is fairly slow in Cygwin. If it turns out that IO is the issue, I don't think I'll be much help, not that I'm much help to begin with here. ;-) It's also possible that you have BLODA on your laptop which could be interfering in some way. I think cygcheck is able to identify some of them for you. The problem reporting guidelines (http://cygwin.com/problems.html) contain information for running cygcheck which may help others identify typical problems. -Jeremy -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |