Eric Wong writes: > Kyle Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: >> | obfuscate | run | wall | usr | sys | >> |-------------+-----+------+--------+------| >> | no | 1 | 50 | 49.14 | 0.57 | >> | no | 2 | 49 | 47.76 | 0.58 | >> | | | | | | >> | yes, master | 1 | 56 | 54.47 | 0.58 | >> | yes, master | 2 | 55 | 54.24 | 0.58 | >> | | | | | | >> | yes, patch | 1 | 175 | 174.71 | 0.52 | >> | yes, patch | 2 | 176 | 174.33 | 0.56 | > > Wow, that's horribly slow. Probably not pathological, but still > bad.
Yeah. The difference was big enough that I was getting ready to kill the run and say "dunno, much longer" (or, rather, try with fewer messages) :) > The following might be slightly faster (or roughly the > same, hard to tell due to system noise). > > -------------8<------------ > Subject: [PATCH] www: do not obfuscate addresses in URLs Looking good on my end too: (54.53 usr + 0.47 sys = 55.00 CPU) @ 0.02/s (n=1) for 135885 <=> 135885 messages Thanks.
