This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: Cygwin performance (was [ANN] PW32 the...)
- To: Heribert Dahms <heribert_dahms at icon-gmbh dot de>,"'scott at sabami dot seaslug dot org'" <scott at sabmail dot rresearch dot com>,"cygwin at sourceware dot cygnus dot com" <cygwin at hotpop dot com>
- Subject: RE: Cygwin performance (was [ANN] PW32 the...)
- From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall at rfk dot com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:59:19 -0500
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@icon-gmbh.de)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Blachowicz [SMTP:scott@sabami.seaslug.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 1994 01:29
> > To: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
> > Subject: Re: Cygwin performance (was [ANN] PW32 the...)
> >
> > Geoffrey Noer <noer@cygnus.com> 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.Blachowicz@seaslug.org
> >
> > --
> > Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> > Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
>
>--
>Want to unsubscribe from this list?
>Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com