Re: ls -lR too slow

["Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh at cygwin dot com>]

On 03/19/2009, Vinod Gupta wrote:
> "smbntsec" made a huge difference, a factor of 10x! "ls -lR /cygdrive/z" 
> still transferred 10 MB, 50x more than "DIR /S Z:" but far better than 400x 
> it was doing with "nosmbntsec". It improves rsync too which does some thing 
> similar to "ls -lR" to get file mtime and size etc to filter files. I think 
> 50x factor sounds still too high. I thought the Cygwin overheads were of 
> the order of 3x or so. Can we squeeze another order of magnitude? 

You'd need to find a way to get rsync to not require the similar task that
'-l' performs for 'ls'.  But before you spend any effort on that, you might
want to compare 'ls -R /cygdrive/z' and 'DIR /S Z:'.  That would be the
"theoretical" limit for Cygwin's speed increase in this situation at this
point.  If there's a good gain there, and I would expect a decent one, then
exploring a way to get rsync operation closer to this would be a benefit.

--
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?

--
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/