mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Stephan T. Lavavej" <stl@nuwen.net>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Process Creation Speed
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 05:44:12 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200404191245.i3JCjqal006292@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040419120957.GB3764@convergence.de>

Thanks to all who have responded.

I had been measuring the time to create and terminate a do-nothing program.
I had not been measuring CGI programs, though that was why I was doing the
measurement in the first place.

I changed my measurement strategy, and I now get about 110 microseconds for
creation and termination of a do-nothing process (fork() followed by
execve()).  Statically linking everything gave a significant speedup, which
allowed me to reach that value.  This was on a 2.6.x kernel.  110
microseconds is well within my "doesn't suck" range, so I'm happy - CGI will
be fast enough for my needs, and I can always turn to FastCGI later if
necessary.

I am writing a web-based forum entirely in C++, rejecting interpreted
languages (Perl, PHP, ASP, etc.) and relational databases (MySQL,
PostGreSQL, etc.) entirely.  My forum consists of "kiddy" CGI processes
which talk over the network to a persistent "mommy" daemon who keeps all
forum state in main memory.

My code runs on both Windows and GNU/Linux with no configuration needed, but
separate measurements indicate that XP takes about 3.3 ms to create and
terminate a do-nothing process.  Thus it looks like Linux 2.6.x will be the
kernel of choice for my forum.

Thanks again!

Stephan T. Lavavej
http://nuwen.net



  reply	other threads:[~2004-04-19 12:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-04-17  2:16 Stephan T. Lavavej
2004-04-18  5:44 ` Eric
2004-04-19  0:30   ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-19  2:15     ` Eric
2004-04-19  3:04       ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-19  5:43         ` Eric
2004-04-19  9:48           ` Jamie Lokier
2004-04-19 12:09             ` Johannes Stezenbach
2004-04-19 12:44               ` Stephan T. Lavavej [this message]
2004-04-19 22:48                 ` David Lang
2004-04-22 13:40                 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2004-04-19 13:28               ` Jamie Lokier
     [not found] <1MFUQ-1zo-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found] ` <1MGnU-1U9-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
2004-04-19 15:43   ` Andi Kleen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200404191245.i3JCjqal006292@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=stl@nuwen.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®