On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 12:32:55AM +0100, Markus Mauhart wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 04:09:54PM +0100, Markus Mauhart wrote: > Never had a problem. Do you really think that NT4sp4 broke it (without > eventually fixing it in sp5,6) ? Works w/o problems on w2k; didnt work > with XPbeta/RC, but this has been fixed for XP's release ( -> probably > some VIPs at MS use winfile.exe ;-)
Don't know the details, sorry. > > I've checked it, it's no problem to view the files in explorer under NT4. > > You mean w2k or wXp (or does NT4spx support ntfs5 including read/write > sparse files) ? Anyway, explorer on XP has no problem with the new > cygwin's sparse files. No I meant NT4. Think 'network share'. You began this thread mentioning NT4, right? > > Nope. All applications using seek instead of blindly writing zeros > > to the file do profit. And also this is default on modern UNIX boxes. > > Now i'm confused: with "seek", did you mean the case I called "extending > a file's size" ? IMHO less than 0,01% of such file expansions really end Yes, seeking beyond the current EOF. Where did you get the number 0.01%? Just guessing I guess. > "this is default on modern UNIX boxes" ... what ? And is it a property > of the filesystem-data, FS-driver or an OS feature ? Files are "just sparse". It's a FS driver property. > Another reason that makes me suspicious: ntfs5 with sparse files is > released since 3/2000, but nevertheless neither w2k nor wxp nor any of > the servers AFAIK provide even the option of creating all new files > in a directory or volume as sparse files - have the guys at MS missed > the performance benefits that cygwin-1.3.21-1 now claims, or do they > know it (their NTFS5x !) better ? We don't claim performance benefits. AFAIK, sql server is using sparse files. I have no idea why MS doesn't make this be default, perhaps just because they are careful with backward compatibility, who knows? > But note, after reading your remarks concerning the previous discussions > in the patches list I've found it and will go through it, maybe this > thread has enough new & good arguments to convince me and make me smarter. Personally I found no good arguments in that thread. The only people who actually tested that feature were Vaclav (the contributor of the patch) and me. I had no negative experience from my tests and, especially positive, mmap() still works, so I have no reason to change anything. Anybody who wants a change has to come up with a testcase showing what's supposedly bad with the patch. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
