This is the mail archive of the cygwin@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
I did some profiling of sparse-files vs. non-sparse files. I found that accessing sparse files is between 5% and 10% slower (on 1.3.22/Win2000).I remade the executables in an old version of inetutils.
The numbers below show that only the larger ones are sparse
(so the relative overhead is small) and that stripping them
removes sparseness.
This is exactly the kind of data I was looking for. It seems to me that this suggests that there really is no issue that we have to worry about in this case.
Out of curiousity, does building the executable 1) without debugging options, and 2) with the -s option, also result in non-sparse files?
I'll test this myself when I get back to a windows computer but that won't be for some time.
I really appreciate your checking into this, Pierre.
cgf
40Meg: 5% 10Meg: 7% 6Meg: 10% 3Meg: 5%
-- 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/
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |