X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:57:17 +0200
From:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: cygwin copy problems usb 2.0
Message-ID:	<20060803185717.GA5300@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<080320060154 DOT 8210 DOT 44D157570002EFAE0000201222064244130A050E040D0C079D0A AT comcast DOT net> <20060803170805 DOT GC8152 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0608031319250 DOT 27351 AT access1 DOT cims DOT nyu DOT edu>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.GSO.4.63.0608031319250.27351@access1.cims.nyu.edu>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.4.2i
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
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

On Aug  3 13:22, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug  3 01:54, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > it would be accepted upstream.  Now if there were something more
> > > POSIX-y that we could do to speed things up, such as posix_fadvise,
> >
> > posix_fadvise can't be implemented nicely, AFAICS.  The POSIX semantics
> > require an already opened file and the advice is given for an offset and
> > a length.  The Windows semantics only allow to give the advice for the
> > whole file, and only switching between FILE_SEQUENTIAL_ONLY or "normal",
> > using ZwSetInformationFile.  By re-opening the file using ZwOpenFile it
> > would also be possible to toggle the FILE_RANDOM_ACCESS flag.  Still,
> > it's always for the whole file, not for an area giving offset and length.
> 
> Theoretically, it's possible to implement posix_fadvise only for offset=0
> and length=<length-of-file>, and have it fail with EINVAL otherwise...
> While technically not POSIX-compliant, it would still allow for better
> implementation of things like copy...

Right.  Now for the next problem.  Could anybody be bothered to actually
test the performance effect of setting FILE_SEQUENTIAL_ONLY when reading
and writing files sequentially as cp does?  It would be quite interesting
to get some real numbers on FAT and NTFS, before implementing posix_fadvice
just to find out that it has no practical effect.  If it's less than 10%
it's not worth the effort, imo.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
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 -