Message-Id:	<200505162135.j4GLZCXC008360@delorie.com>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Gary R. Van Sickle" <g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Please test latest snapshot
Date:	Mon, 16 May 2005 16:38:13 -0500
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<loom.20050516T160024-968@post.gmane.org>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

[snip uberslow network traverse]

> 
> I don't know if there is a reasonable way to speed this up, 
> because you want to ensure that //machine exists before 
> allowing `cd //machine' to succeed, but don't want to go 
> stat'ing every machine on the network when doing a readdir() on //.
> 

I can think of one way: go to a "thread pool" sort of arrangement where you
spawn off a thread to wait for the (non-)responses from network PCs in
parallel.  This would reduce the worst-case traverse time from O(Ttimeout)
to O(Ttimeout/Nsize-of-threapool).

Of course, this would require massive changes to ls, and would unnecessarily
slow down and increase resource usage of the most common use case of ls,
namely getting a simple directory listing of files on a local disk.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -