On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 07:24:39AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >According to Christopher Faylor on 9/20/2005 10:05 AM: >>AFAICT, we're not talking about defaults. We're talking about the >>optimum setting. >> >>Your change to xargs doesn't permit me to go beyond 32K. Personally, >>I'd like to be able to override that. > >So would I. See below. > >>I have a similar test which shows noticeable improvement when going >>from 32K to 64K and miniscule-but-still-there improvements after that: > >Was this benchmark run on a modified xargs, or did you still suffer >from the 32k limit?
It was a modified xargs and a modified cygwin to allow command line lengths > 1M. I would think that the fact that you see noticeable timing differences between 32768 -> 262144 would make that pretty clear that xargs was actually using these. An unmodified xargs would have given errors if I attempted to use a larger limit - hence my request to be allowed to use larger sizes. cgf