Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Path: not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sven_K=F6hler?= Subject: Re: Copy-on-write fork Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:42:33 +0200 Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <018501c1e810$0bea9bd0$0100a8c0 AT advent02> NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9e58a96.dip.t-dialin.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035236491 11108 217.229.138.150 (21 Oct 2002 21:41:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet AT main DOT gmane DOT org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 21:41:31 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <018501c1e810$0bea9bd0$0100a8c0@advent02> > A test program and statistics are shown below which clearly show Cygwin's > fork implementation in the lead. how much memory did your programs allocate prior to fork()ing? copy-on-write might only apply to applications with high memory-usage. another thing i didn't understand was, why you took a the real-time for mesuring? i can do "time mc" and exit mc after 10sec and time will show real-time 10sec but the _real cpu-time_ is below <1sec. the CPU-times consumed by the copy-on-write-implemention is _lower_ than cygwin-implementation's CPU-time. so why are you guys worried? -- 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/