X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:50:41 -0500 (EST)
From:	Igor Peshansky <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Snapshot speed on managing files
In-Reply-To:	<20070113193603.GB5595@calimero.vinschen.de>
Message-ID:	<Pine.GSO.4.63.0701131450150.17383@access1.cims.nyu.edu>
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> <20070113193603 DOT GB5595 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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 Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> 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?

D'oh.  Sorry for the noise.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu | igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Freedom is just another word for "nothing left to lose"...  -- Janis Joplin

--
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 -