Slow fork issue - Win x64

[Jarkko Häkkinen]

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