X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_43,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <49486E25.50405@byu.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:12:37 -0700
From: Eric Blake <ebb9 AT byu DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.18) Gecko/20081105 Thunderbird/2.0.0.18 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] [1.7] Updated: coreutils-7.0-1
References: <announce DOT 4947253E DOT 7000707 AT byu DOT net> <20081216092025 DOT GA15438 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4947AC31 DOT 2000005 AT byu DOT net> <20081216140949 DOT GH6830 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <49480CFB DOT 3080908 AT t-online DOT de>
In-Reply-To: <49480CFB.3080908@t-online.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Christian Franke on 12/16/2008 1:18 PM:
> 
> On my XP SP2, st_size is always 0, even for large and fragmented
> directories.

Likewise for all the machines I have access to.  Maybe it is just Vista
that added directory size tracking?

>>
>> Interesting question.  NTFS and FAT filesystems are name-sorted by
>> default.  AFAIK directory changes on FAT are done in-memory, resorted,
>> and then written back as a whole block to disk.  
> 
> XP does not sort a FAT directory.

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.

- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             ebb9 AT byu DOT net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAklIbiUACgkQ84KuGfSFAYB1ZACdEE1PkyLyAKXlXmGyiU5wqQp7
eKMAoLAKddkbBPoU5AMJRrjyMrB46t6H
=T0zT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
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/