[ANNOUNCEMENT] [1.7] Updated: coreutils-7.0-1

Eric Blake ebb9@byu.net
Wed Dec 17 03:13:00 GMT 2008

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

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

Eric Blake             ebb9@byu.net
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


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/

More information about the Cygwin mailing list