From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20570 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2001 15:42:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20525 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2001 15:42:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO femail32.sdc1.sfba.home.com) (24.254.60.22) by sourceware.cygnus.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2001 15:42:37 -0000 Received: from ece.gatech.edu ([24.5.105.154]) by femail32.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with ESMTP id <20011113154236.ISXF26778.femail32.sdc1.sfba.home.com@ece.gatech.edu>; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 07:42:36 -0800 Message-ID: <3BF13F87.2070600@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 01:17:00 -0000 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ralf Habacker CC: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: AW: cygwin vfork References: <000101c16c39$19f18980$651c440a@BRAMSCHE> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2001-11.t/txt/msg00111.txt Ralf Habacker wrote: >> > 3) The cygwin implementation of fork-and-exec doesn't jive well with >> > the VM size of xemacs. Supposedly a real vfork is in the works for >> > cygwin but I can't attest to its functionality. > Can you explain this a little bit more ? I'm asking because in > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2001-q4/msg00276.html I have described > some problems with kde2 on cygwin relating performance and I'm very interested > in getting more informations how to fix these problems. In short, loading the > full kde2 desktop needs about 4 minutes and the reaction time for starting apps > are > 1 minute. This seems to be unusable. > My assumption are that these problems depends on application loading (vfork is > used on every app), file and socket io. > A regular kde2 app uses about 20-40 dll's, so a faster vfork would decrease the > loading time. :-) Well, this is the clarification that I received: > The VM comment is referring to the large footprint of XEmacs which means > that doing a fork requires copying an awful lot of data (and hence takes a > long time), most OS's do copy-on-write for vfork so the overhead is never > incurred. And of course, cgf chimed in on this thread, but I can't find his message in my mail archive, and (as mentioned elsewhere) the cygwin ml archive is missing his message as well, so I can't quote it here for you. --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20570 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2001 15:42:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20525 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2001 15:42:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO femail32.sdc1.sfba.home.com) (24.254.60.22) by sourceware.cygnus.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2001 15:42:37 -0000 Received: from ece.gatech.edu ([24.5.105.154]) by femail32.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with ESMTP id <20011113154236.ISXF26778.femail32.sdc1.sfba.home.com@ece.gatech.edu>; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 07:42:36 -0800 Message-ID: <3BF13F87.2070600@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 08:26:00 -0000 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ralf Habacker CC: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: AW: cygwin vfork References: <000101c16c39$19f18980$651c440a@BRAMSCHE> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00111.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20011111082600.ROCGJoY9p9VdjiVTqaiPTB7JdfQr8OzSF86xg9SaaSE@z> Ralf Habacker wrote: >> > 3) The cygwin implementation of fork-and-exec doesn't jive well with >> > the VM size of xemacs. Supposedly a real vfork is in the works for >> > cygwin but I can't attest to its functionality. > Can you explain this a little bit more ? I'm asking because in > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2001-q4/msg00276.html I have described > some problems with kde2 on cygwin relating performance and I'm very interested > in getting more informations how to fix these problems. In short, loading the > full kde2 desktop needs about 4 minutes and the reaction time for starting apps > are > 1 minute. This seems to be unusable. > My assumption are that these problems depends on application loading (vfork is > used on every app), file and socket io. > A regular kde2 app uses about 20-40 dll's, so a faster vfork would decrease the > loading time. :-) Well, this is the clarification that I received: > The VM comment is referring to the large footprint of XEmacs which means > that doing a fork requires copying an awful lot of data (and hence takes a > long time), most OS's do copy-on-write for vfork so the overhead is never > incurred. And of course, cgf chimed in on this thread, but I can't find his message in my mail archive, and (as mentioned elsewhere) the cygwin ml archive is missing his message as well, so I can't quote it here for you. --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/