Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <002b01c22d5f$5412daa0$a50aa8c0@pcse5> From: "BiDuS" To: References: <1026851730 DOT 8871 DOT ezmlm AT cygwin DOT com> Subject: RE: Cygwin is SLOW Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:58:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Ok, maybe my English was bad enough to confuse you about my question. I meant "why is there a so big difference between executing one script (say the fast one) on a distant file and on a local file ?", the path to chmod.exe being the same for both execution (am I wrong ?). I quoted my results and drop other stuff. >> I've tried both slow and fast perl scripts on my machine (AMD XP1700, W2K) >> >> If test.file is on a local directory >> >> $ perl fastchm.pl >> 2923.6 chmods per sec >> >> if test.file is on a mounted directory (through a symlink) >> >> $ perl fastchm.pl >> 143 chmods per sec >> >> Could anyone explain the performance ratio for both scripts ??? [SNIP] >> I got a wider gap for small c program opening and closing about 650 files >> It takes 0.750 s for local files and about 2 s for distant files >> On the linux machine, it's just 0.1 s for distant files... >> >> Is the _open() routine guilty ? >> Is it linked to the unix AND dos path compatibility ? >> Anyone as a hint to speed this up ? I noticed you mentionned the influence of the PATH length upon the global performance and I keep invastigating... (path convertion routine) -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/