X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references
	:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=default; b=UwQL
	peHSIm1GXiAKxQ/9vMOUIT7552yzcdMPLI7rV+q+zHnlSrPh8IruUPqXixkfVNuL
	u3a0HgD551j6SSucl+qqjTZp0p4x5ZtI19qTvUBsVOOX+54yyiL88vUPTFzq2+p6
	ukqEj4PoL+46qJc91UFc5v6YrH2QgNGHWkVkWlU=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references
	:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default; bh=hFEGZS9yCZ
	LwpNXzRlZsXewmpg4=; b=PIRkPmM7AkAVIaDyH0ZndePO1HgXLgs9HrSZNSUQZe
	IhfGNh5AhxSl5Rb1A2R/OEKznyG5siKk+wMdQpS3/dwqIpcp5nF92d+ETKbURqMc
	pVsx48Cd6OHUO58ZaI+zgxx9EOW79W2UwmoF1bStbxa5hu10XDDoE40RZgWL+EXN
	s=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.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
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=versus, H*r:sk:22.2016, discussions, 50am
X-HELO:	mail-wm0-f42.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=38TgQgRYxwkYGr/AR3Rc8A9lbIx8pREpECoEMTgx4SY=; b=Bu4gbkvUSNGzijawigOtoghPCiq9RfT6xEtk8eGbzOZgzyQsteWNW32fuUgA4eUuwK Qx84BkqMAYZeHl3PxG8L8dnd8Z57Ys9UxTEEO7WsioWZ9Nc4dk/Rss2JXs9GM+H18iA4 dUBZP1wYIeyJj91koMWYSihMave+BjEg9Wyfn/rx6HRdmPH37nvGZyCdm9gJg3LrtPDl txuKxO5txeyPOziqC9MiIqLyvfc5QPRrrrOyzw5aaTR4QAS4FuUN4xIOZnPGV18vqJoT On2tdUN7nxJKkMnKn/7UeeOY7t8dMHVqqM849VOgXN34z7vliLm7op2z62VbDVNYhfd9 ABrg==
X-Gm-Message-State:	AOPr4FUsnk4rPM916yyW7cRQrsZFwCYuVlh6LDS53CvyHKDkWovAh+qtN42KlbcUyKtQ+Q==
X-Received:	by 10.194.248.135 with SMTP id ym7mr20552772wjc.174.1463227435679; Sat, 14 May 2016 05:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date:	Sat, 14 May 2016 13:03:53 +0100
From:	Adam Dinwoodie <adam AT dinwoodie DOT org>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Possible issue with newest version of git (v 2.8) under Cygwin
Message-ID:	<20160514120353.GH2345@dinwoodie.org>
References:	<CADMefsagnTv23Jfi6St9VRpcabQJ9vekP2siT_Pfh=xO943QqQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<CADMefsagnTv23Jfi6St9VRpcabQJ9vekP2siT_Pfh=xO943QqQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 09:59:50AM -0400, andrew stern wrote:
> >I'm not sure I understand what you're seeing: if your repository is
> >already set up with core.filemode set to false, Git won't check the
> >executable flag on the files.  What leads you to think the speed
> >slow-down is related to checking whether the file is executable?
> 
> >If setting cygexec makes a noticable speed difference even with
> >core.filemode false, I can only conclude the problem is somewhere
> >below Git and related to how the Cygwin DLL provides file access.
> 
> >FWIW, having just checked the Cygwin user guide's fstab
> >instructions[0], the noacl setting should be ignored on NFS
> >filesystems; if you're seeing that make a difference, that looks like
> >a bug.
> 
> I tried a clone and pull both with the noacl and without the noacl. In
> my experiment without the noacl it was much faster when doing pulls
> after someone else checked in changes.  I located on the web a
> reference to noacl being slow when doing a stat under cygwin and
> figured if I prevent reading each file it might be faster so I went to
> my noacl directory and did a pull of their changes after adding the
> cygexec flag after the noacl flag.  Instead of being tens of minutes
> it was just a bit over a minute and a half.

To be absolutely clear: if you mount an NFS share with noacl set, you
get a noticable speed increase versus not setting noacl?

> Although the repository
> is on a NFS drive the local file system is NTFS and I see it spending
> lots of time doing the update on the merge even though it is just a
> couple of files that have changed.  I'm still trying to figure out
> what exactly is going on and how best to deal with the permissioning
> issue that we are now experiencing.  After discussions we would rather
> have it slow then have bad permission problems but I'd rather not have
> either issue.

Am I correct in understanding you have multiple users trying to access
the same shared Git working repository?  I'm aware it's a workaround
rather than an actual solution, but I'd expect you'd have better luck
with each having a separate working copy on your local machine rather
than sharing a common working copy.

> If I leave off the noacl and do a clone followed by a push and pull we
> end up with the following error in the Windows security tab:
>   The permissions on file.cpp are incorrectly ordered, which may cause
> some entries to be ineffective.

Yes, I've seen that before; it's a problem with the underlying
cygwind1.dll rather than a problem with Git.  I believe the consensus
from people on this list who know more about Windows permissions than me
is that the warning is actually benign and can be ignored.

--
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

- Raw text -