Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:26:24 -0400 From: "Dan Langille" <dan@langille.org> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@chello.cz> Subject: Re: HEADS UP - master/slave ports Message-ID: <40D19C00.7328.7BDBB173@localhost> In-Reply-To: <8EF2042C-C082-11D8-9250-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> References: <40D19691.26918.7BC6780D@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17 Jun 2004 at 19:19, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > Dan Langille wrote: > > > FWIW, I created a script which invoked the command 15,000 times. > > > > The original patch: > > > > real 15m54.561s > > user 10m40.866s > > sys 5m1.405s > > > > The patch derived in this thread: > > > > real 15m48.481s > > user 10m39.745s > > sys 4m54.753s > > > > Confession: Yes, this isn't a very subjective test, but it's a place > > to start from if someone is concerned about the performance issues > > herein. > > Note that Kris was very concerned adding a single `test', which is a > shell-builtin, to bsd.port.mk: > <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd- > ports/2004-June/012941.html> > > I guess he won't be very happy with spawning two processes. Are you comparing the patches presented with that in the above URL? Are you suggesting we should abandon this? -- Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/ BSDCan - http://www.bsdcan.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40D19C00.7328.7BDBB173>