This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Slow fork issue - Win x64
- From: Jarkko HÃkkinen <jarkko dot hakkinen at hotmail dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:20:10 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: Slow fork issue - Win x64
- References: <1613876000.20080917204140@F1-Photo.com> <COL101-W1796553906F07DD5A0E579E64F0@phx.gbl> <1542859895.20080918134643@F1-Photo.com> <21561482.post@talk.nabble.com> <27607447.post@talk.nabble.com> <4B7C869D.8040908@laposte.net>
Your results notwithstanding, my performance (if you want to call looping
'date's that) went down five-fold from what it was on XP 32-bit and
corresponds to the figures posted at the beginning of the thread. And as to
the bash not being "efficient shell", that may very well be but I think it
would be naive to think that a fellow developer does not notice changes in
his development environment as apparent as auto-completion or compilation --
routines repeated thousands of times over many years.
Obviously, there could be something else wrong in my setup as well, but I
did ran similar tests through the native command shell and been timing my
compilation times on MSVC. Everything is lightning-fast in comparison to my
old dev env -- just not cygwin.
-J
Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
>
>
> bash is not an efficient shell :
>
> while : ; do date; done | uniq -c
>
> 5 Thu Feb 18 01:03:30 2010
> 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:31 2010
> 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:32 2010
> 9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:33 2010
> 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:34 2010
> 9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:35 2010
> 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:36 2010
> 5 Thu Feb 18 01:03:37 2010
>
> let's try pdksh (well, not really more efficient) :
>
> 7 Thu Feb 18 01:03:38 2010
> 9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:39 2010
> 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:40 2010
> 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:41 2010
> 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:42 2010
> 9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:43 2010
> 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:44 2010
> 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:45 2010
> 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:46 2010
> 7 Thu Feb 18 01:03:47 2010
>
> and ksh 93 :
>
> 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:59 2010
> 7 Thu Feb 18 01:04:00 2010
> 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:01 2010
> 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:02 2010
> 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:03 2010
> 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:04 2010
> 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:05 2010
> 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:06 2010
> 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:07 2010
> 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:08 2010
>
> ksh88 is not so bad :
>
> 7 Thu Feb 18 01:06:47 2010
> 6 Thu Feb 18 01:06:48 2010
> 10 Thu Feb 18 01:06:49 2010
> 9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:50 2010
> 9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:51 2010
> 10 Thu Feb 18 01:06:52 2010
> 9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:53 2010
> 9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:54 2010
> 8 Thu Feb 18 01:06:55 2010
> 9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:56 2010
>
> tests realised under cygwin 1.7 on a Q6600 in 32 bit mode (around 30% of
> cpu usage)
>
> Cordialement,
>
> Cyrille Lefevre
> --
> mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre-lists@laposte.net
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Slow-fork-issue---Win-x64-tp19538601p27645832.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