Re^4: A question of fork efficiency

This version is slightly faster and much better on CPU time. My version wrecks the CPU. The only thing I need to do here is tweak this version to run with the same output as mine. I'll post the portion that actually runs the commands soon. I think something like this may make this tool run much better. Here is your code running with 1000 as max on the 7k+ servers:

real    0m56.481s
user    0m2.515s
sys     0m2.165s
[download]

Using my default fork value as max of 100:

real    1m26.502s
user    0m2.537s
sys     0m2.270s
[download]

Comment on Re^4: A question of fork efficiency Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: A question of fork efficiency by tybalt89 (Monsignor) on Aug 07, 2019 at 15:40 UTC
It's not much faster on wall clock time because the problem itself is dominated by timeouts. I'd be curious to see the wall clock times when run on only 'alive' servers.	[reply]
Re^6: A question of fork efficiency by synless (Acolyte) on Aug 08, 2019 at 16:04 UTC
Ask and you shall receive. Output for your non blocking version: `Good count is 3037 Bad count is 0 Total count is 3037 real 0m24.790s user 0m1.093s sys 0m1.046s` [download] Forking version `Good count is 3037 Bad count is 0 Total count is 3037 real 0m15.358s user 0m10.870s sys 0m19.205s` [download] The forking version is faster up to a point but really puts the CPU through the ringer compared to what you came up with. Once you start hitting around 5k servers or so is when your version starts to shine.	[reply] [d/l] [select]