From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mathias Dahl Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Willing to debug bug #3542 (23.0.94; File access via UNC path slow again under Windows) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 22:47:37 +0200 Message-ID: <7dbe73ed0907081347q12dfd1a2lbbff915c49362f75@mail.gmail.com> References: <7dbe73ed0907051401o26903ca3t9a67060f3a3417ad@mail.gmail.com> <83fxda1pef.fsf@gnu.org> <7dbe73ed0907060038w53699f77ie742996955ae8118@mail.gmail.com> <838wj11sz4.fsf@gnu.org> <83my7fz09s.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1247086103 7290 80.91.229.12 (8 Jul 2009 20:48:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 20:48:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 08 22:48:15 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MOe3q-0008Sq-9G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:48:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55135 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MOe3p-0003Mz-PF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:48:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MOe3k-0003MQ-H1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:48:08 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MOe3g-0003LV-4c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:48:08 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57015 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MOe3f-0003LS-Uq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:48:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-bw0-f213.google.com ([209.85.218.213]:38902) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MOe3b-0000DP-Py; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:48:00 -0400 Original-Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so634618bwz.42 for ; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:47:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6/ZY6MP8/WqP4oE5fpO8jNP/YXKsLl7cothL8L5kvtQ=; b=TqHRNbt5egknHvOqHc+0I279YaEhKbkdg4AauXZjBWRyzEC8gmo1VeuhC4HFTXAn+U uCdxGxVMk9C+568wSqd/HNcDKUEGma7/02BvLMJSBpY+AK3fYiiV6Rrk55G9YWKiAIsz KEhY4lhYmfsvDvoP/6e4zRpjj+/OZXBQDVrlQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=HOTMnUP9Oxfb651otkYGv5jjr24Mb/plqDYr7f5aSCBgXAjToBO5YEcL9UKybRD9G7 VC8HN1UXQKdsioLDIwdN+4Ggm8wHJvgdIdnMGlL0uBjAcvpJg8EE4Z0QaB+ywWEl/UQ6 VIA6Kq8upIZA4Kg4E7fpE04CsfRZ8sa70ZC5M= Original-Received: by 10.204.116.69 with SMTP id l5mr7289870bkq.52.1247086077182; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:47:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83my7fz09s.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:112195 Archived-At: > First, I don't see a ~100-fold slowdown, I see only a 10-fold slowdown > (vs Emacs 22.3). =A0This is with a directory that has ~130 > subdirectories. The more files there are, the bigger the slowdown seems to be, in my tests. > =A0. Do you see significant difference in speed with cold and hot cache? > =A0 That is, if you run Dired on the above directory, then kill the > =A0 Dired buffer and immediately run Dired again on the same directory, > =A0 what times do you see then in Emacs 23? Hehe, it got even worse the second time :) > =A0. Does it help to set w32-get-true-file-attributes to nil? Woooo! Um, yes... It helped all right. From 85 (first try) and 115 (second try as per reuest above), down to 1,4 s. Shall we call that as success? :) > =A0 previous test shows a significant speedup with hot cache, please > =A0 try this with a cold cache, which may mean rebooting the machine > =A0 where you are trying this, or maybe waiting long enough for the > =A0 cache to "cool down" and in addition restarting Emacs (to get rid > =A0 of Emacs's internal caching). I assume I don't need to test this now. If I do, ask me again. > =A0. If w32-get-true-file-attributes does have a significant effect, > =A0 please tell how many different user names and group names you see > =A0 in the listing presented by "C-x d". It looks like this: //gbgfs1/archive75: total used in directory 8728 available 8198544 drwxrwxrwx 1 Administrators Domain Users 0 1970-01-01 . dr-xr-xr-x 1 mdahse Domain Users 0 1970-01-01 .. drwxrwxrwx 1 demoruntime Domain Users 0 2008-12-05 _ConfigBuil= d drwxrwxrwx 1 demoruntime Domain Users 0 2008-06-09 acadc ... and then all other lines after that has the same user and group names. The one that differs above (mdahse) is my own username. >> Not yet. =A0But perhaps install StraceNT >> (http://stracent.en.softonic.com/) and see what are the differences >> between Emacs 22 and Emacs 23. =A0Maybe you will even be able to see the >> system call(s) that take most of this extra time. > > Did you have a chance to do this? =A0If so, can you post the results? Not yet, no. Is it still interesting? /Mathias