X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "David Tazartes" To: "'Thrall, Bryan'" , In-Reply-To: <786EBDA1AC46254B813E200779E7AD363AFE50@srv1163ex1.flightsafety.com> Subject: RE: Simple bash script is slow to execute - appears to be time spent starting commands like ls Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:06:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: X-ELNK-Trace: 5bf265d7c89f1e8e1aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec793641177e8cbd038583b2f4bf6552d7d7350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Bryan Thrall wrote: You're right about true being built-in, but we still don't know from your examples whether the problem is from forking or from IO. Try replacing 'true' in Jeremy's loop with '/bin/true'. Comparison between the two should give us an idea of the forking cost, without IO getting in the way. ----- I had to reduce to 100 iterations. On Linux: real 0m0.448s user 0m0.244s sys 0m0.220s On Cygwin: real 0m48.411s user 0m15.005s sys 0m18.520s So basically a factor of 100... again points to forking or Vista process start slowness. -- 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