X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4C058753.1030400@cygwin.com> References: <20100530170747.GA8605@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4C03D6C5.4050004@x-ray.at> <80373222dd5d43b134a5ede7036e7674.squirrel@www.webmail.wingert.org> <4C058753.1030400@cygwin.com> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:06:12 -0700 Subject: Re: Cygwin Performance and stat() From: "Christopher Wingert" To: cygwin@cygwin.com User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.20 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 That's fine, can you propose something that is acceptable? BTW, who does this patch need to pass muster with? The only maintainer I could find is Dave Korn. Thanks, Chris > On 6/1/2010 5:42 PM, Christopher Wingert wrote: >> I think there are a lot of use cases where the extra information (ACL >> information *I assume* is the majority of the problem) is unnecessary. >> For most of the applications filename, size, and the three dates are all >> that is necessary. So cygwin stat is overkill. So if I can tell the >> emulation layer (via an environment flag) or the actually utility >> (bash/ls/make/find/du) via a command line switch, I think I can save a >> lot >> of time waiting. >> >> Just to highlight how bad this problem is. I have a network drive with >> 681 sub directories and approximately 90k files. A time comparison for >> getting directory information as follows: >> >> *DOS "dir /s" takes 17 seconds. >> *Cygwin "ls -lR" takes 5950 seconds (that's almost two hours). >> *msls -lR takes 55 seconds. >> *myls (see code below) takes 7 seconds. >> >> Each test was done twice and after a reboot to make sure there was no >> caching involved. >> >> To be clear, Cygwin ls is 850X slower. > > Thanks for this information and perhaps I'm wrong but I don't believe > anyone in this thread thought that you were lying when you noted issues > with the performance of stat(). ;-) But providing a variant of stat() > along the lines of what you propose above is not practical for all the > reasons already stated. I believe we would all like stat() to be > quicker but we need something that solves the root of the problem and > not partial, hidden solutions that are problematic to use. > > -- > Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com > RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office > 216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX > Holliston, MA 01746 > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > A: Yes. >> Q: Are you sure? >>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? > > -- > 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 > > -- 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