<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 11, 2022, at 3:22 AM, Maxim Kartashev <<a href="mailto:maxim.kartashev@jetbrains.com" class="">maxim.kartashev@jetbrains.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">I imagine it's hard to get anything above 0% when watching just one directory, nor is it representative of the use case I'm interested in (a source code tree). My experiment was with a recursive watch of 50K files in 6K directories, 19K modifications done (files modified, added, removed, directories added) in 8 minutes. That generated ~17% sys, ~7% user (24% of one CPU overall) with the polling watch service.<br class=""></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:19 AM Michael Hall <<a href="mailto:mik3hall@gmail.com" class="">mik3hall@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 10, 2022, at 7:12 PM, Michael Hall <<a href="mailto:mik3hall@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">mik3hall@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 10, 2022, at 7:03 PM, Brian Burkhalter <<a href="mailto:brian.burkhalter@oracle.com" target="_blank" class="">brian.burkhalter@oracle.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class="">
Near-0 CPU sounds good!<br class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 10, 2022, at 3:36 AM, Maxim Kartashev <<a href="mailto:maxim.kartashev@jetbrains.com" target="_blank" class="">maxim.kartashev@jetbrains.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="">
<div class=""><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none;float:none;display:inline" class="">I
benchmarked this implementation (well, the implementation this one is based on, now it's become quite different) extensively. The main advantage of FSEvents over polling was near-0 CPU usage when there were small number of changes to the directory being watched,
while polling naturally always has some background job to do and its CPU usage heavily depends on refresh speed (like 25% with SENSITIVITY_HIGH and modest rate of changes).</span></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></div>It did. Neither usage or difference seemed significant.</div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div class="">Although Maxim saw some difference in his benchmarking. </div><br class=""></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">Much more a stress test than mine. I was seeing like 0% to 0.1% for FSEvents and .1% to .2% for polling. </div><div class="">Did you get anything on memory and gc as well?</div></body></html>