> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Xuefer
> Sent: 22 June 2004 10:24
> i searched, but can't find. so many unrelative topics
> which keyword do u recommend?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=copy+on+write+fork+sit
Corinna Vinschen:
i searched, but can't find. so many unrelative topics
which keyword do u recommend?
=== Original Message 2004-06-22 17:01:30: ===
>On Jun 22 16:46, Xuefer wrote:
>> the current implement non-copy on write is damn slow.
>> especially configure scripts, which has
On Jun 22 16:46, Xuefer wrote:
> the current implement non-copy on write is damn slow.
> especially configure scripts, which has soo many forks
Read the mailing list archives.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Co-Project Leader m
the current implement non-copy on write is damn slow.
especially configure scripts, which has soo many forks
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:
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 s
> Repeat after me: don't open old threads.
> However I'll let you off this once, because you are using a newsreader and
> I've made the same mistake before.
BTW: As long as it's open, I did try to compile and link with the libfork.a
you(?) sent me, to try it on XP, and got nowhere. I couldn't li
> > 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,
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 t
> > I assume that one possible reason is that the copy-on-write fork may be
> > somehow bypassing normal in-memory sharing of text segments but I never
> > knew for sure.
> >
>
> Have either of you tried this comparison on XP, to see if it's any
different
> t
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris January [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:07 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Copy-on-write fork
>
>
> This is mainly a question aimed at Christopher Faylor, but
> maybe someone else kn
cgf wrote:
> I assume that one possible reason is that the copy-on-write fork may be
> somehow bypassing normal in-memory sharing of text segments but I never
> knew for sure.
>
Have either of you tried this comparison on XP, to see if it's any different
there? I'm runni
faster.
I implemented a fork using Windows API copy-on-write (for NT) and I
believe I also tried to use the low-level NT technique. Neither showed
any noticeable performance gain and, of course, both suffered from
being NT-only.
I assume that one possible reason is that the copy-on-write fork
This is mainly a question aimed at Christopher Faylor, but maybe someone
else knows the answer.
My question is, with regard to Chris's post "Re: copy-on-write (oh well)"
[http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2000-07/msg00026.html], does
anyone know why a copy-on-write implementation of fork
13 matches
Mail list logo
