Re: fork performance

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:52:47PM +1300, Lloyd Parkes wrote:
> So, with a slightly closer look, a guess and some tests to verify my guess, 
> and I think I have found my performance problem converting the NetBSD CVS 
> repositories to Mercurial.
> 
> The CVS server forks once for each command it receives, and it receives a lot 
> of commands. NetBSD fork(2) seems to be much slower than OS X fork(2). Since 
> the cvs server never execs anything, vfork isn't an option. I have 
> implemented a program that can do the CVS log extraction efficiently and 
> correctly (i.e. without forking), but extracting the versioned data itself 
> isn't trivial. 

Why don't you run cvs locally?

Thor