Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/11/28/07:27:39
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 07:44:55PM -0800, Linda Walsh wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I was hoping that this discussion about ext3 would die a natural death but
>>it looks like I have to make the observation that this really has nothing
>>to do with Cygwin
>---
> Don't know what "cygwin" you are talking about, but the one I
>download from cygwin.com seems to have several utils that deal with
>ext2/ext3. If ext2/ext3 performance relative to NTFS is a verboten
>discussion and has nothing to do with Cygwin, then perhaps
>these utils shouldn't be in Cygwin??
Was the discussion about how these utilities create fragmented ext3
filesystems under Cygwin? No. The message that I responded to was
dumping the contents of an ext3 filesystem and talking about how to look
at segments on ext3.
We often redirect general "how do I use the tools" (e.g., bash, gcc,
make) discussions to more appropriate mailing lists. There is nothing
cygwin-specific that I can see in the last couple of messages.
>How can we begin to determine how well or poorly cygwin on top of NT
>does if we aren't allowed to discuss how well ext2/ext3 perform.
>For whatever reasons, they are the only non-NT file systems
>cygwin seems to have utilities for.
Maybe I was premature in declaring this off-topic but it certainly seems
to me that you are discussing something that is not going to be of very
much interest to anyone here when you start discussing how to interpret
the output of debugfs and, additionally, I haven't seen any indication
that cygwin is doing anything particularly wrong.
So, I withdraw my objection but please be cognizant of the fact that
this is a cygwin list not a "how do I use particular standard utilities
that cygwin supplies" list.
cgf
--
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 -