delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Recipient: | archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com |
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: | No, hits=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL |
X-Spam-Check-By: | sourceware.org |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
In-Reply-To: | <4C87AEB9.5020001@redhat.com> |
References: | <AANLkTi=ASzGNwU9TSKU2TZSbAksy6=Pu94=0S5Vt0Sc- AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <4C86867D DOT 4050509 AT cygwin DOT com> <AANLkTi=rN9OA4Qp0eCbiWN0Kt_pvjDwDVfOERBzR1iCZ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <4C87AACB DOT 6050805 AT cygwin DOT com> <4C87AEB9 DOT 5020001 AT redhat DOT com> |
Date: | Sat, 11 Sep 2010 10:52:19 -0500 |
Message-ID: | <AANLkTin6VxrfhQRD2w6SRKfnThTZPT219zQZNmW0C=8o@mail.gmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: incredibly slow file listing script on windoze 7 pro 4 core 64 bit |
From: | mike marchywka <marchywka AT gmail DOT com> |
To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
X-IsSubscribed: | yes |
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 9/8/10, Eric Blake <eblake AT russianhut DOT comie> wrote: > On 09/08/2010 09:24 AM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >> To somewhat sooth your curiousity, Windows (or perhaps it's more accurate >> to say NTFS) ain't great with directories with a large number of files. >> I expect you would be less than impressed with the performance of of 'dir' >> in 'cmd.exe' in the same directory. That said, you're asking for allot >> more >> work than you may realize when doing the same thing in Cygwin. In order to I don't want to add more clutter with this contrived example but just to make a point, I just got a 500G WD USB disk and sent these things to their final resting place. I had to reformat it is as vfat as that seems to be the only thing that is RW everywhere. I ran the script on this newer debian install with vfat and USB disk and it is faster than 'doze and probably faster than old emachines because I now have 2.8ghz CPU LOL. >> fill in the information you ask for when you use the '-l' flag for 'ls', >> Cygwin needs to open and close the files, which takes a good chunk of time >> en masse. The same does not need to happen in Linux/UNIX-land. > > Additionally, the stat() interface is puny - it MUST take the time to > fill out the complete struct, even if the caller only cares for part of > the information. If the Linux kernel ever incorporates the pending > xstat() kernel call[1], then cygwin adds support for it, and coreutils > is taught to make good use of it, then operations like ls can be sped up > by asking for only the portions of the stat data that they plan on > actually using, letting cygwin skip the work of obtaining the rest of > the stat information just to be thrown away by the caller. > > [1]version 6 of that kernel patch is still being debated; as recently as > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1008.2/00274.html > -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |