On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:35:57PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Jan 3 06:20, Eric Blake wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> According to Corinna Vinschen on 1/3/2007 5:16 AM: >> > >> > Setting st_blksize to 64K might be a good idea for disk I/O if the value >> > is actually used by applications. Do you have a specific example or a >> > test result from a Cygwin application which shows the advantage of >> > setting st_blksize to this value? I assume there was some actual case >> > which led you to make this change ;) >> >> Did you read the original link? >> http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2006-12/msg00911.html > >Urgh, sorry, no. I missed it even twice, once when scanning the Cygwin >list to see what happened since Christmas, and once in Brian's mail >starting this thread. > >So it appears to make much sense to set the blocksize to 64K. The >only question would be whether to use getpagesize() or a hard coded >value. It seems to me that the 64K allocation granularity and using >64K as buffer size in disk I/O coincide so I tend to agree that it >makes sort of sense to use getpagesize at this point. What do you >think, Chris?
I don't think getpagesize should be linked to this value. The fact that both are 64K seems to be a coincidence to me. This wasn't mentioned in the document that Brian mentioned was it? If we specifically want to use 64K block sizes then I think we should specifically say that rather than relying on some other unrelated mechanism to return a 64K constant. cgf
