X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<27607447.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Feb 2010 04:19:25 -0800 (PST)
From:	=?UTF-8?Q?Jarkko_H=C3=A4kkinen?= <jarkko DOT hakkinen AT hotmail DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Re[2]: Slow fork issue - Win x64
In-Reply-To:	<21561482.post@talk.nabble.com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
References:	<1613876000 DOT 20080917204140 AT F1-Photo DOT com> <COL101-W1796553906F07DD5A0E579E64F0 AT phx DOT gbl> <1542859895 DOT 20080918134643 AT F1-Photo DOT com> <21561482 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT 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

I'm getting rather similar results on my Cygwin 1.7.1, Windows 7 as evidenced
by the figures below. Upgraded from a dual core Windows XP to a quad core i7
Windows 7 causing my cygwin performance to plummet. Even the bash
auto-completion is so annoyingly sluggish that it makes the shell virtually
unusable. 

For me, there's no choice between whether or not to make the transition from
XP to 7 as we're using the latest DirectX technology. Hope somebody will
figure this out.

[13:41:50 ~]$ while (true); do date; done | uniq -c
      5 Tue Feb 16 14:00:09 FLEST 2010
      7 Tue Feb 16 14:00:10 FLEST 2010
      9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:11 FLEST 2010
      9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:12 FLEST 2010
      9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:13 FLEST 2010
      9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:14 FLEST 2010
      9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:15 FLEST 2010
      9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:16 FLEST 2010
      6 Tue Feb 16 14:00:17 FLEST 2010
      5 Tue Feb 16 14:00:18 FLEST 2010
      9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:19 FLEST 2010



prashantv wrote:
> 
> My speeds are even slower than those posted:
> 
> Prashant AT HOME [~]
> $ while (true); do date; done | uniq -c
>       1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:50 AUSEDT 2009
>       1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:51 AUSEDT 2009
>       2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:52 AUSEDT 2009
>       1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:53 AUSEDT 2009
>       2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:54 AUSEDT 2009
>       2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:55 AUSEDT 2009
>       1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:56 AUSEDT 2009
>       3 Tue Jan 20 22:25:57 AUSEDT 2009
>       1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:58 AUSEDT 2009
>       2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:59 AUSEDT 2009
>       2 Tue Jan 20 22:26:00 AUSEDT 2009
>       2 Tue Jan 20 22:26:01 AUSEDT 2009
> 
> I am running cygwin 1.5.25, Windows 2008 x64 on a Intel Core 2 @ 2.13ghz.
> One CPU is maxed to 100% when forking. This speed explained why opening
> bash took as long as 10 seconds, and I wanted to find out why it was so
> slow.
> 
> Is it possible to profile the implementation easily?
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Slow-fork-issue---Win-x64-tp19538601p27607447.html
Sent from the Cygwin list mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


--
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

- Raw text -