X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,BOTNET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-id: <4C058753.1030400@cygwin.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:18:59 -0400 From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" Reply-to: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090320 Remi/2.0.0.21-1.fc8.remi Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 MIME-version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin Performance and stat() References: <20100530170747 DOT GA8605 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4C03D6C5 DOT 4050004 AT x-ray DOT at> <80373222dd5d43b134a5ede7036e7674 DOT squirrel AT www DOT webmail DOT wingert DOT org> In-reply-to: <80373222dd5d43b134a5ede7036e7674.squirrel@www.webmail.wingert.org> Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit 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 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