On Jan 3 10:40, Christopher Faylor wrote: > 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.
Ok, I'll apply Brians patch with 64K hardcoded plus a comment why this looks like a good idea, performance-wise. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
