Rolf Campbell wrote:
> 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:
>
> 40Meg: 5%
> 10Meg: 7%
> 6Meg: 10%
> 3Meg: 5%
>
> 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.
Rolf,
to remove the possible biases you allude to, could you start from
an existing file, time it, then change it (in place) to a sparse
file and re-execute the timing test?
The way to change the file to sparse follows (untested, I don't have
access to sparse files today)
DWORD dw;
HANDLE handle = CreateFile(name, GENERIC_WRITE, 0, NULL, OPEN_EXISTING,
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NORMAL, NULL);
(returns INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE on error)
BOOL r = DeviceIoControl ( handle , FSCTL_SET_SPARSE,
NULL, 0, NULL, 0, &dw, NULL);
(returns 0 on error)
Pierre
--
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/
