Or it's implementation on Linux... I doubt anybody had any problems with NTFS on Windows :)
You may also be using it via FUSE... not fastest approach. If you need to keep your sources on NTFS you may create temporary location on native FS and rsync before building (or DVCS). We used it instead of NFS/SAMBA for quick cross-platform builds. Much faster. On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com> wrote: > Bah, this whole mailinglist disappeared to some file that I wasn't > aware of :p But I found it back now... > > I moved the sources to a slow (7200 rpm) HDD using ext4, and it > became 5 times faster. > > Conclusion: NTFS sucks totally. > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 11:47:36AM -0400, Bill Hoffman wrote: > > On 9/6/2012 5:56 AM, Amine Chadly wrote: > > >Hi, > > >I am no CMake expert, but I would test on an identical file system > types... > > >I am pretty sure that ntfs and ext3fs don't have the same read-write > > >access latency and this might explain your time difference. > > >You could additionally launch a strace on the two settings and see if > > >there are major differences that could explain the performance hit... > > >Good luck. > > > > > and has a NTFS. > > > > It is almost certainly the NTFS. What if you move the source to the SSD? > > > > -Bill > > -- > Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com> > -- > > Powered by www.kitware.com > > Visit other Kitware open-source projects at > http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html > > Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: > http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ > > Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: > http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake >
-- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
