Subject: Re: Copy-on-write fork
From: Sven Köhler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:05:42 +0200

> 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/