From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11671 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2010 00:15:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 11657 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Feb 2010 00:15:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SARE_FREE_WEBM_LAPOSTE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from out6.laposte.net (HELO out5.laposte.net) (193.251.214.123) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:15:02 +0000 Received: from meplus.info (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf8411.laposte.net (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A7623E00008B for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:14:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.133] (137.228.100-84.rev.gaoland.net [84.100.228.137]) by mwinf8411.laposte.net (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4A468E00008A for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:14:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4B7C869D.8040908@laposte.net> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:15:00 -0000 From: Cyrille Lefevre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Slow fork issue - Win x64 References: <1613876000.20080917204140@F1-Photo.com> <1542859895.20080918134643@F1-Photo.com> <21561482.post@talk.nabble.com> <27607447.post@talk.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <27607447.post@talk.nabble.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-me-spamlevel: not-spam X-me-spamrating: 34.000000 X-me-spamcause: OK, (-150)(0000)gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrvdeltddrfeeiucetggdotefuucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuoehnohhnvgeqnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecuucdlqddutddtmdentghorhguihgrlhgvmhgvnhhtucdlqdehtddm X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2010-02/txt/msg00445.txt.bz2 Jarkko H=E4kkinen a =E9crit : >=20 > I'm getting rather similar results on my Cygwin 1.7.1, Windows 7 as evide= nced > by the figures below. Upgraded from a dual core Windows XP to a quad core= i7 > Windows 7 causing my cygwin performance to plummet. Even the bash > auto-completion is so annoyingly sluggish that it makes the shell virtual= ly > unusable.=20 >=20 > For me, there's no choice between whether or not to make the transition f= rom > XP to 7 as we're using the latest DirectX technology. Hope somebody will > figure this out. >=20 > [13:41:50 ~]$ while (true); do date; done | uniq -c > 5 Tue Feb 16 14:00:09 FLEST 2010 > 7 Tue Feb 16 14:00:10 FLEST 2010 > 9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:11 FLEST 2010 > 9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:12 FLEST 2010 > 9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:13 FLEST 2010 > 9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:14 FLEST 2010 > 9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:15 FLEST 2010 > 9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:16 FLEST 2010 > 6 Tue Feb 16 14:00:17 FLEST 2010 > 5 Tue Feb 16 14:00:18 FLEST 2010 > 9 Tue Feb 16 14:00:19 FLEST 2010 >=20 >=20 >=20 > prashantv wrote: >> My speeds are even slower than those posted: >> >> Prashant@HOME [~] >> $ while (true); do date; done | uniq -c >> 1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:50 AUSEDT 2009 >> 1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:51 AUSEDT 2009 >> 2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:52 AUSEDT 2009 >> 1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:53 AUSEDT 2009 >> 2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:54 AUSEDT 2009 >> 2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:55 AUSEDT 2009 >> 1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:56 AUSEDT 2009 >> 3 Tue Jan 20 22:25:57 AUSEDT 2009 >> 1 Tue Jan 20 22:25:58 AUSEDT 2009 >> 2 Tue Jan 20 22:25:59 AUSEDT 2009 >> 2 Tue Jan 20 22:26:00 AUSEDT 2009 >> 2 Tue Jan 20 22:26:01 AUSEDT 2009 >> >> I am running cygwin 1.5.25, Windows 2008 x64 on a Intel Core 2 @ 2.13ghz. >> One CPU is maxed to 100% when forking. This speed explained why opening >> bash took as long as 10 seconds, and I wanted to find out why it was so >> slow. >> >> Is it possible to profile the implementation easily? 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=20 cpu usage) Cordialement, Cyrille Lefevre --=20 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