Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 07:29:18 -0400 From: "Dan Langille" <dan@langille.org> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP - master/slave ports Message-ID: <40D299CE.22727.7FBB2E3E@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1DC17B53-C0A2-11D8-9250-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> References: <065a01c454a9$d5c32a00$7890a8c0@dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17 Jun 2004 at 23:05, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > > >> These appear to be slightly faster than the previous stats I posted. > >> Everything is pratically identical in user time. sys is where the > >> savings are being made. > > > > it's strange that this code (w/ no fork) is not much faster than 2 > > forks ! > > The benchmark is not really valid. Depending on your machine, > nearly everything will be in the cache. This is not true when > you have other stuff in the loop, like building the INDEX. Agreed. There are now a number of options to test under load and under the actual conditions they will be used. -- 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?40D299CE.22727.7FBB2E3E>