On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gilles Scokart wrote:
>> Couldn't it be optimized on windows by simply remove the check ?
>> Windows don't have symbolic link...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_link#Windows
Not sure whether we'd detect them.
And then there may be a m
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, Kevin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>> At the same time memory usage has increased with 1.7.0 and never
>> decreased after that, in fact the current HEAD uses more memory
>> than ever before. Something between revisions 687768 and 693846
>> has bumped the memory ma
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin Jackson wrote:
>
> > That's a huge difference - what are we doing now in 1.7.1 that is
> > different from before?
>
> I think it tries to sort stuff less.
>
> This broke hadoop builds as their class structure was wrong
> http
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Kevin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The tests are not through yet, but one thing was so surprising to
>> me that I wanted to show it upfront:
>>
>> Running the matchall target (of sr/etc/performance/dirscanner.xml):
>>
>> Ant 1.6.5 1 min 30 s ~ 19 MB
Gilles Scokart wrote:
>
> Couldn't it be optimized on windows by simply remove the check ?
> Windows don't have symbolic link...
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_link#Windows
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/DirectoryScanner-performance-tp19549555p19567453.html
S
2008/9/19 Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Interestingly the effect of followSymlinks=false is far less dramatic
> on Linux than on Windows.
>
Couldn't it be optimized on windows by simply remove the check ?
Windows don't have symbolic link... We could either have
followSymlinks being not
Hi,
> At the same time memory usage has increased with 1.7.0 and never
> decreased after that, in fact the current HEAD uses more memory than
> ever before. Something between revisions 687768 and 693846 has bumped
> the memory mark without gaining us much in terms of performance, I'll
> try to iso
Tests on Ubuntu 8.04, Java 1.6, I only tested two svn revisions and
1.7.1 (and used top instead of task manager in my highly scientific
approach to measure memory consumption 8-)
The trends are the same. Even though the machine is a lot slower than
my work Windows system the times are comparable.
My complete test results are below. Ant 1.7.1 has been consistently a
lot faster than 1.6.5 which consistently took half the time of 1.7.0.
svn trunk's HEAD is consistently faster than 1.7.1.
At the same time memory usage has increased with 1.7.0 and never
decreased after that, in fact the curren
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin Jackson wrote:
> >> The tests are not through yet, but one thing was so surprising to me
> >> that I wanted to show it upfront:
> >>
> >> Running the matchall target (of sr/etc/performance/dirscanner.xml):
> >>
> >> Ant 1.6.5
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Kevin Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The tests are not through yet, but one thing was so surprising to
>> me that I wanted to show it upfront:
>>
>> Running the matchall target (of sr/etc/performance/dirscanner.xml):
>>
>> Ant 1.6.5 1 min 30 s ~ 19 MB
Kevin Jackson wrote:
The tests are not through yet, but one thing was so surprising to me
that I wanted to show it upfront:
Running the matchall target (of sr/etc/performance/dirscanner.xml):
Ant 1.6.5 1 min 30 s ~ 19 MB
Ant 1.7.0 3 min 53 s ~ 24 MB
Ant 1.7
> The tests are not through yet, but one thing was so surprising to me
> that I wanted to show it upfront:
>
> Running the matchall target (of sr/etc/performance/dirscanner.xml):
>
> Ant 1.6.5 1 min 30 s ~ 19 MB
> Ant 1.7.0 3 min 53 s ~ 24 MB
> Ant 1.7.1
13 matches
Mail list logo
