Re: Cygwin Filesystem Performance degradation 1.7.5 vs 1.7.7, and methods for improving performance

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Oct  7 15:25, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Oct  7 15:17, Yoni Londner wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Sorry for my prev email (I noticed your 2 emails only after I sent
> > it) and for top posting.
> 
> No worries.
> 
> > > Actually, I can't reproduce it at all.  I just created a patch which
> > > drops the GENERIC_READ and only opens the symlinks with it, just as
> > > proposed.  The results between the two versions are statistically
> > > identical.
> > 
> > I did a little investigation to find out why you can't reproduce it.
> > I found that the cause it is so slow on my computer is NOD32 AV (as
> > all the computers in my company).
> > When i disable it, I got the results you got.
> > 
> > So, I looked for computers with different AV software and found two,
> > one with Symantec, and one with Mcafee.
> > Symantec was even slower:
> >   3592 files stat() 4023ms, per file: 1.1201ms
> > Mcafee more or less was the same:
> >   3592 files stat() 3425ms, per file: 0.9535ms
> > My computer (NOD32):
> >   3592 files stat() 3353ms, per file: 0.9333ms
> 
> So, there's a good reason I hate virus scanners.  I'll check in my
> patch then since it seems to be a good idea for all users which are
> forced to use them.

I'm still wondering, though, why this solution is slower on Samba.
What on earth is Samba's problem with the restricted access mask?!?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat