prelink performance gains

[Reindl Harald]

Am 15.10.2013 21:13, schrieb Jan Kratochvil:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:08:40 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 15.10.2013 21:05, schrieb Jan Kratochvil:
>>> It depends, for example in this case prelink saves 33% of time (and battery):
>>> 	i=0;time while [ $i -lt 1000 ];do /usr/bin/gnome-open --help &>/dev/null;i=$[$i+1];done
>>
>> where are the numbers?
>> prove it!
> 
> 33% is the number.  It was 2.848s vs. 4.291s, that is 33.63%.

*lol* 1.44 seconds for *thousand startups*
now it's clear why you came up only with the % before asking for numbers

and you think after that somebody takes any contribution in this
thread coming from you (consider your other trolling too) serious?

you really try to tell me that if my machine get slow due prelink
is running does not do more harm than 1.44 seconds spread over
how many days you need to start a big application 1000 times?

>> and after that start your brain and compare that numbers with
>> the battery wasted by prelinking itself,
> 
> prelinking never runs on battery, or it is a bug if it does.
> At least I run notebook 24x7 on AC and only occasionally I take it out with
> battery, then prelink works perfectly for me as I have described it.

so what - and the notebook on AC which get's slow and hot
due prelink does not matter for *what* benfit - ah 1.4
seconds - wait 1.4 seconds ina total of 1000 startups

i am unsure if i now should laugh or whine

>> nobody but you is running CGI these days
>> anybody but you is using fast-cgi
> 
> OT: I use mod_perl for majority of my web code

and why do you than defeat prelink that much?
are you the developer of it or married the developer?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20131015/8b2e8fed/attachment.sig>