-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 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 sort. - -- Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well! Eric Blake e...@byu.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 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 iEYEARECAAYFAklIbiUACgkQ84KuGfSFAYB1ZACdEE1PkyLyAKXlXmGyiU5wqQp7 eKMAoLAKddkbBPoU5AMJRrjyMrB46t6H =T0zT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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/
