This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Sparse file performance (Was: Re: Sparse file criteria malfunction- binutils produces sparse .exe & .dll files)
- From: Rolf Campbell <rcampbell at tropicnetworks dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 20:19:46 -0400
- Subject: Sparse file performance (Was: Re: Sparse file criteria malfunction- binutils produces sparse .exe & .dll files)
- References: <3EDF9E8D.AA452A2E@ieee.org> <20030605201621.GA19631@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: IDontLikePersonalReplies at hotmail dot com
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I did some profiling of sparse-files vs. non-sparse files. I found that
accessing sparse files is between 5% and 10% slower (on 1.3.22/Win2000).
I remade the executables in an old version of inetutils.
The numbers below show that only the larger ones are sparse
(so the relative overhead is small) and that stripping them
This is exactly the kind of data I was looking for. It seems to me that
this suggests that there really is no issue that we have to worry about
in this case.
Out of curiousity, does building the executable 1) without debugging options,
and 2) with the -s option, also result in non-sparse files?
I'll test this myself when I get back to a windows computer but that won't
be for some time.
I really appreciate your checking into this, Pierre.
I created a 3Meg, 6Meg, 10Meg and 40Meg file using cp /dev/zero. I then
copied each file using windows explorer (and then verified that the
sparse bit was gone).
Then I ran 'time cat filename > /dev/null' (i ran it a few times to
make sure the file was cached). The performance difference was:
This wasn't the most sofisticated test ever, I did not ensure that the
files were equally fragmented on disk. But, it does show that sparse
files are notably slower.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html