Re^5: A question of fork efficiency

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.

Comment on Re^5: A question of fork efficiency

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

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]