X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:36:03 +0100
From:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Snapshot speed on managing files
Message-ID:	<20070113193603.GB5595@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<62410 DOT 52144 DOT qm AT web25001 DOT mail DOT ukl DOT yahoo DOT com> <20070112102454 DOT GA8311 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <Pine DOT CYG DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0701121033010 DOT 320 AT PC1163-8460-XP DOT flightsafety DOT com> <20070113181859 DOT GA5595 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0701131407200 DOT 17383 AT access1 DOT cims DOT nyu DOT edu>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.GSO.4.63.0701131407200.17383@access1.cims.nyu.edu>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
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 Jan 13 14:08, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

[... needless full quote deleted ...]

> > Can anybody explain to me why moving to the bin should take that
> > long on another machine?  Apparently the performance hit is barely
> > visible on my machine.  It's hardly worth to change the code.
> >
> > Maybe I'm just "suffering" from caching effects?  I added a really long
> > `find' run between creating and deleting the files, but that made the
> > results in both variations even better!  1.4s vs. 1.2s.
> >
> > So, what's up on the slow machines?  Virus checker?  But why should an
> > open/close sequence not be hit by a virus checker, while an open/move/
> > close sequence gets hit that badly?  I don't quite get it.
> 
> Does <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2007-01/msg00383.html> seem like a
> plausible answer?  I'm just reiterating it because it may have been lost
> among other suggestions in this thread.

What about http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2007-01/msg00384.html?


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 -