From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii 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, 08 Jul 2009 18:01:51 +0300 Message-ID: <83my7fz09s.fsf@gnu.org> References: <7dbe73ed0907051401o26903ca3t9a67060f3a3417ad@mail.gmail.com> <83fxda1pef.fsf@gnu.org> <7dbe73ed0907060038w53699f77ie742996955ae8118@mail.gmail.com> <838wj11sz4.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1247065935 26961 80.91.229.12 (8 Jul 2009 15:12:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 15:12:15 +0000 (UTC) To: mathias.dahl@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 08 17:12:08 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 1MOYoZ-0005lV-K4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:12:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54112 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MOYoY-0007qc-QX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:12:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MOYf9-00085r-0L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:02:23 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MOYf7-00083s-Qm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:02:22 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49469 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MOYf7-00083A-E0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:02:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout5.012.net.il ([84.95.2.13]:50990) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MOYf6-0001YC-O9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:02:21 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout5.012.net.il by i_mtaout5.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KMG00100XIL9I00@i_mtaout5.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:01:50 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.249.41]) by i_mtaout5.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KMG00AMKXR2GD30@i_mtaout5.012.net.il>; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:01:50 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <838wj11sz4.fsf@gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9.1 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:112185 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:01:19 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > From: Mathias Dahl > > Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 09:38:07 +0200 > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > > //gbgfs1/archive75 is a share that contains 260 directories and three > > files. The server is located in our office. > > > > C-x d //gbgfs1/archive75 RET > > > > Emacs 22.1.1: 1 s > > Emacs 23.0.95.1: 95 s > > > > So, that is about 95 times slower... > > Ouch! I'm quite sure I would have noticed such a terrible slowdown. > > Let me time similar commands tomorrow in my office. Sorry for a long delay. I finally found a few minutes to look into this. First, I don't see a ~100-fold slowdown, I see only a 10-fold slowdown (vs Emacs 22.3). This is with a directory that has ~130 subdirectories. I have a hypothesis for the reason of this slowdown, but I need a few more facts from you to make sure the slowdown I see is caused by the same factors as what you see: . Do you see significant difference in speed with cold and hot cache? That is, if you run Dired on the above directory, then kill the Dired buffer and immediately run Dired again on the same directory, what times do you see then in Emacs 23? . Does it help to set w32-get-true-file-attributes to nil? If the previous test shows a significant speedup with hot cache, please try this with a cold cache, which may mean rebooting the machine where you are trying this, or maybe waiting long enough for the cache to "cool down" and in addition restarting Emacs (to get rid of Emacs's internal caching). . If w32-get-true-file-attributes does have a significant effect, please tell how many different user names and group names you see in the listing presented by "C-x d". Thanks in advance. > > Any tests in particular you want me to run? > > Not yet. But perhaps install StraceNT > (http://stracent.en.softonic.com/) and see what are the differences > between Emacs 22 and Emacs 23. Maybe 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? If so, can you post the results?