Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/03/13/18:51:15
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 12:32:55AM +0100, Markus Mauhart wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 04:09:54PM +0100, Markus Mauhart wrote:
> Never had a problem. Do you really think that NT4sp4 broke it (without
> eventually fixing it in sp5,6) ? Works w/o problems on w2k; didnt work
> with XPbeta/RC, but this has been fixed for XP's release ( -> probably
> some VIPs at MS use winfile.exe ;-)
Don't know the details, sorry.
> > I've checked it, it's no problem to view the files in explorer under NT4.
>
> You mean w2k or wXp (or does NT4spx support ntfs5 including read/write
> sparse files) ? Anyway, explorer on XP has no problem with the new
> cygwin's sparse files.
No I meant NT4. Think 'network share'. You began this thread mentioning
NT4, right?
> > Nope. All applications using seek instead of blindly writing zeros
> > to the file do profit. And also this is default on modern UNIX boxes.
>
> Now i'm confused: with "seek", did you mean the case I called "extending
> a file's size" ? IMHO less than 0,01% of such file expansions really end
Yes, seeking beyond the current EOF. Where did you get the number 0.01%?
Just guessing I guess.
> "this is default on modern UNIX boxes" ... what ? And is it a property
> of the filesystem-data, FS-driver or an OS feature ?
Files are "just sparse". It's a FS driver property.
> Another reason that makes me suspicious: ntfs5 with sparse files is
> released since 3/2000, but nevertheless neither w2k nor wxp nor any of
> the servers AFAIK provide even the option of creating all new files
> in a directory or volume as sparse files - have the guys at MS missed
> the performance benefits that cygwin-1.3.21-1 now claims, or do they
> know it (their NTFS5x !) better ?
We don't claim performance benefits. AFAIK, sql server is using sparse
files. I have no idea why MS doesn't make this be default, perhaps just
because they are careful with backward compatibility, who knows?
> But note, after reading your remarks concerning the previous discussions
> in the patches list I've found it and will go through it, maybe this
> thread has enough new & good arguments to convince me and make me smarter.
Personally I found no good arguments in that thread. The only people
who actually tested that feature were Vaclav (the contributor of the
patch) and me. I had no negative experience from my tests and, especially
positive, mmap() still works, so I have no reason to change anything.
Anybody who wants a change has to come up with a testcase showing what's
supposedly bad with the patch.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -