Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:00:40PM +0100, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > > With a -t it gives to me: > > > > [gc@bi ~] time rpmmon -p xmms > > gc > > 0.13user 0.01system 0:00.24elapsed 57%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k > > 0inputs+0outputs (352major+448minor)pagefaults 0swaps > > Exact same test here (on a different machine than I posted earlier with > but that doesn't really matter). > > [breser@titanium utils]$ time ./rpmmon.pl -p xmms -t maints > gc > 1.23user 0.64system 0:04.03elapsed 46%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata > 0maxresident)k > 0inputs+0outputs (1240major+675minor)pagefaults 0swaps > > Same test with the code in my CGI script. On the same machine as above. > 0.27user 0.00system 0:00.42elapsed 63%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata > 0maxresident)k > 0inputs+0outputs (436major+322minor)pagefaults 0swaps > > That's 9 times faster. Now maybe on a tool when you're running it by > hand on a command line you don't care that you have to wait. But when > you shove it on a webserver and make it accessible to the world speed is > the difference between and overwhelmed server and one that runs nicely.
It's unclear why you need 4 seconds where I need 0.24 sec only, but this thread is not a big deal, if your cgi stuff is quick and gives correct results problem is solved and basta. [...] > > It's nice that you provide a cgi way to have maintainers but I > > don't see what I can do with your code. > > Ohh I wasn't really suggesting that you do anything with it. I was > providing it so if you wanted to see how I'd done it and was getting > different results as far as execution speed. Well when you said you published the code I've went to see it on your website. Yet since rpmmon does a few other things that giving the maintainer, and speed is not a problem on this side, I'm not going to change the architecture of the program. Thanks for your time! -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://www.frozen-bubble.org/
