X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:44:01 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] [1.7] Updated: coreutils-7.0-1 Message-ID: <20081217084401.GL6830@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20081216092025.GA15438@calimero.vinschen.de> <4947AC31.2000005@byu.net> <20081216140949.GH6830@calimero.vinschen.de> <49480CFB.3080908@t-online.de> <49486E25.50405@byu.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49486E25.50405@byu.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Dec 16 20:12, Eric Blake wrote: > Most readdir() implementations return files either in creation order or > name order. But what matters for the optimization done by coreutils is > inode order - on file systems where increasing inodes represent increasing > disk positions, then stat'ing files in inode order results in less seek > time than visiting files in name order. I guess what needs to happen now > is actually testing whether NTFS is like ext3 in benefiting from the inode > sort. I assume it depends on the meaning of the NTFS file numbers. Is that anywhere documented? 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/