From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun 18 11:30:25 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECB7816A4CE
	for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:30:25 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from bast.unixathome.org (bast.unixathome.org [66.11.174.150])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55F443D1D
	for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:30:25 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from dan@langille.org)
Received: from wocker (wocker.unixathome.org [192.168.0.99])
	by bast.unixathome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8FB943D40; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 07:29:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dan Langille" <dan@langille.org>
To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 07:29:18 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <40D299CE.22727.7FBB2E3E@localhost>
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <1DC17B53-C0A2-11D8-9250-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
References: <065a01c454a9$d5c32a00$7890a8c0@dyndns.org>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.12a)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body
cc: ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: HEADS UP - master/slave ports
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:30:26 -0000

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/