Nothing too fancy - it's a Core 2 Duo T7200 @ 2GHz running Fedora 8. It was top-o-the-line when I bought it 1.75 years ago, but time marches on...
Frankly, I couldn't figure out what you were doing with dividing the time by $N-1, but I decided not to care since I could just do the same for threads and forks and they should be affected equally. Also, sleep(1) in a benchmark could create some interesting problems - the OS generally doesn't guarantee how long that will take, only that it will take at least 1 second.
-sam
| [reply] |
it's a Core 2 Duo
Okay. That explains it. Two cores versus one.
I couldn't figure out what you were doing with dividing the time by $N-1,
Actually, I'm dividing by $N and then subtracting one.
The total time will be N*1 + N*(time of interest); so dividing by N gives 1 + (time of interest); -1 leaves (time of interest).
The idea of the sleep was to simulate doing something else in the interim--there being no point in multitasking it, if all your going to do is wait for the results.
Not a great benchmark I admit, but it did get me a set of numbers to consider, rather than just anecdotal "forks are faster than threads on *nix". Thanks :)
ps. Suggesting that win32 is "DOS" is very tacky. 'sides, even if it was DOS, it'd still be a decade newer than that Multics derivitive that you seem to like :)
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
