Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-Id: <4.3.2.20000315164908.00d3ab40@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:59:19 -0500 To: Heribert Dahms , "'scott AT sabami DOT seaslug DOT org'" , "cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com" From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: RE: Cygwin performance (was [ANN] PW32 the...) In-Reply-To: <99B82AA9708ED0119B55006097125A002DE964@ifk63.mach.uni-karl sruhe.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This is a good point and one we shouldn't loose sight of. I, like many others, don't use the "default" ls (my ls is aliased to ls -CF). At least in my case, the listing is slowed down because all files need to be opened to determine their type. From my recollection, ls without any bells and whistles does not require this and therefore any performance degradation noticed here on network drives is the result of just network overhead. That doesn't mean that this overhead couldn't be lessened nor that it wouldn't be good to find ways to make these embellished accesses work more quickly, across the network or otherwise. However, it does seem prudent to be specific about what causes what to be slow. Operations that require the files to be opened on a local or network disk will always be slower than those that do not. Larry At 04:41 PM 3/15/00, Heribert Dahms wrote: >Hi Scott, > >are you hardwired to 'ls', 'ls -l' or (like me) 'll'? >My stock b20 'ls' spits out only filenames! > >Bye, Heribert (heribert_dahms AT icon-gmbh DOT de) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Blachowicz [SMTP:scott AT sabami DOT seaslug DOT org] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 1994 01:29 > > To: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com > > Subject: Re: Cygwin performance (was [ANN] PW32 the...) > > > > Geoffrey Noer wrote: > > > > > ... > > > Interesting. We have been trying to improve (and succeeding in > > improving) > > > Cygwin's runtime performance but that's been done comparing Cygwin > > to > > > Cygwin-past and not so much by doing benchmarks against other > > systems I > > > think. > > > > Great! Have you found any way to improve the performance of commands > > like 'ls' > > against remotely mounted file systems? I frequently have things like > > > > NET USE * \\SERVER\SHARE > > > > where SERVER is located on the far end of a PPTP link to a system a > > few > > thousand miles (18-22 hops over the Internet via an ISDN connection on > > my end) > > and doing an 'ls' is unuseably slow (and I think I've tried various > > releases > > from b17 to b20.1). So, I usually try to remember to use the "command > > prompt" > > and the DIR command which works just fine. I also wave perl scripts > > over the > > remote directories (scripts that do file globbing and file system > > traversals) > > and they run fine...but they don't try to get all the file info that > > an 'ls > > -l' would - ought to try out an 'ls' command from the Perl Power Tools > > set > > sometime... > > > > At any rate...since 'ls' is hardwired into my fingers and I wander > > into these > > directories often enough, using cygwin can be painful, so I haven't > > gotten > > fully into playing with it yet. > > > > > Have people run any benchmarks comparing Cygwin, Uwin, NuTcracker, > > Interix, > > > anything else out there? > > > > That would be useful info! > > > > Scott DOT Blachowicz AT seaslug DOT org > > > > -- > > Want to unsubscribe from this list? > > Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com > >-- >Want to unsubscribe from this list? >Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com