From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30302 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2002 03:02:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 30218 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2002 03:02:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO itdomain003.itdomain.net.au) (203.63.157.208) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Apr 2002 03:02:45 -0000 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: Copy-on-write fork MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:26:00 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Robert Collins" To: "Chris January" , X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01077.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris January [mailto:chris@atomice.net]=20 > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:07 PM > To: cygwin@cygwin.com > Subject: Copy-on-write fork >=20 >=20 > This is mainly a question aimed at Christopher Faylor, but=20 > maybe someone else knows the answer. My question is, with=20 > regard to Chris's post "Re: copy-on-write (oh well)"=20 > [http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2000-07/msg00026.h > tml], does anyone know why a copy-on-write implementation of=20 > fork takes longer than the current Cygwin version??=20 What would be interesting would be to closely monitor the relevant perfmon items and see if you can determine the thing causing the delay. You'd probably need a custom program to get enough detail though :[. Rob -- 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/