Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/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
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?= <skoehler AT upb DOT de>
Subject: Re: Copy-on-write fork
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:05:42 +0200
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <ap43ni$4k7$1@main.gmane.org>
References: <ap1saa$ar4$1 AT main DOT gmane DOT org> <LPEHIHGCJOAIPFLADJAHKEFLCPAA DOT chris AT atomice DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9e58a4e.dip.t-dialin.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035309618 4743 217.229.138.78 (22 Oct 2002 18:00:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet AT main DOT gmane DOT org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:00:18 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016
X-Accept-Language: de, en
In-Reply-To: <ap1saa$ar4$1@main.gmane.org>

> 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/