X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <456BB0B7.8060608@tlinx.org> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:44:55 -0800 From: Linda Walsh User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: NTFS fragmentation under Cygwin & not NT/XP; redux References: <456133E5 DOT 8000509 AT tlinx DOT org> <200611201252 DOT 31836 DOT vdergachev AT rcgardis DOT com> <4569060F DOT 3010507 AT tlinx DOT org> <200611271425 DOT 00568 DOT vdergachev AT rcgardis DOT com> <20061127220448 DOT GA16091 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> In-Reply-To: <20061127220448.GA16091@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Christopher Faylor wrote: > I was hoping that this discussion about ext3 would die a natural death but > it looks like I have to make the observation that this really has nothing > to do with Cygwin --- Don't know what "cygwin" you are talking about, but the one I download from cygwin.com seems to have several utils that deal with ext2/ext3. If ext2/ext3 performance relative to NTFS is a verboten discussion and has nothing to do with Cygwin, then perhaps these utils shouldn't be in Cygwin?? > uname -sro CYGWIN_NT-5.1 1.5.22(0.156/4/2) Cygwin > apropos ext2 debugfs (8) - ext2/ext3 file system debugger dumpe2fs (8) - dump ext2/ext3 filesystem information e2fsck (8) - check a Linux ext2/ext3 file system e2fsck [fsck] (8) - check a Linux ext2/ext3 file system e2image (8) - Save critical ext2/ext3 filesystem data to a file e2label (8) - Change the label on an ext2/ext3 filesystem mke2fs (8) - create an ext2/ext3 filesystem mke2fs [mkfs] (8) - create an ext2/ext3 filesystem resize2fs (8) - ext2/ext3 file system resizer tune2fs (8) - adjust tunable filesystem parameters on ext2/ext3 fi lesystems law> apropos ext3 debugfs (8) - ext2/ext3 file system debugger dumpe2fs (8) - dump ext2/ext3 filesystem information e2fsck (8) - check a Linux ext2/ext3 file system e2fsck [fsck] (8) - check a Linux ext2/ext3 file system e2image (8) - Save critical ext2/ext3 filesystem data to a file e2label (8) - Change the label on an ext2/ext3 filesystem mke2fs (8) - create an ext2/ext3 filesystem mke2fs [mkfs] (8) - create an ext2/ext3 filesystem resize2fs (8) - ext2/ext3 file system resizer tune2fs (8) - adjust tunable filesystem parameters on ext2/ext3 fi lesystems ------------------ The discussion has been about NTFS and how NT-native apps handle fragmentation compared to Cygwin. Cygwin's performance with NTFS (both default and optimized) was being compared to linux's allocation performance on "xfs" and "ext2(&3)". Two responses clarifying the test conditions on ext2/3 were asked and then you declare the whole "discussion"[sic] as having nothing to do with Cygwin? Perhaps not caring for the topic, you haven't been reading it? The discussion has everything to do with the performance on NTFS, the underlying filesystem that cygwin recommends vs. ext2/ext3. As for your assertion that ext2/ext3 have nothing to do with cygwin, the cygwin distribution contains/provides several utilities ( as shown above) for for creating, checking, debugging, resizing, tuning imaging, labeling and dumping ext2/ext3 file systems. The data I processed was output from "debugfs" -- a utility that also exists on cygwin. How can we begin to determine how well or poorly cygwin on top of NT does if we aren't allowed to discuss how well ext2/ext3 perform. For whatever reasons, they are the only non-NT file systems cygwin seems to have utilities for. -l -- 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/