On Aug 3 01:54, Eric Blake wrote: > > >I'm really seeing the non-optimized cygwin cp behaviour causing bad > > >reputation, which could be easily patched and maybe even accepted > > >upstream. Who knows. Eric what do think? Would it be worthful to think > > >about? > > I don't really want to maintain a Windows API patch, and doubt that
Good. > it would be accepted upstream. Now if there were something more > POSIX-y that we could do to speed things up, such as posix_fadvise, posix_fadvise can't be implemented nicely, AFAICS. The POSIX semantics require an already opened file and the advice is given for an offset and a length. The Windows semantics only allow to give the advice for the whole file, and only switching between FILE_SEQUENTIAL_ONLY or "normal", using ZwSetInformationFile. By re-opening the file using ZwOpenFile it would also be possible to toggle the FILE_RANDOM_ACCESS flag. Still, it's always for the whole file, not for an area giving offset and length. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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/