Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!brazeau.ucs.ualberta.ca!alberta!cpsc.ucalgary.ca!deraadt From: deraadt@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Theo de Raadt) Subject: Re: vfork() (was Re: RS6000 questions/comments) In-Reply-To: sef@kithrup.COM's message of 30 Jun 91 17:53:34 GMT Message-ID: Organization: U of Calgary, CompSci References: <889@rufus.UUCP> <19439@rpp386.cactus.org> <1991Jun30.175334.12063@kithrup.COM> Distribution: usa Date: 30 Jun 91 19:56:00 Lines: 24 In article <1991Jun30.175334.12063@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >In article I writes: >>I suggest those who say that vfork() is not needed anymore try this test >>on their machine. > vfork() 1m8.09s real 0m30.38s user 0m35.55s sys 147 vfork/sec > fork() 1m7.51s real 0m29.15s user 0m35.57s sys 148 fork/sec > > Yep, I can see what a win vfork() is. No, if you'll look at my original figures that I posted, you'll see what that exactly says WHY the machine you are on should have vfork()! This above data says flatly that your machine does not have vfork(). If it did have vfork(), I suggest that based on my figures you could probably do about 1400 vfork()'s per second. Geez, a sun3/50 can beat your vfork() behaviour! HAHAHAHAHA! I should compare it to an 11/750, but I don't wish to brave that much slowness right now -- it just might beat you though.