[ot]

> Almost nothing, except in-memory processing, requires 64-bit for dealing with files over 2GB. Piping with utilities is the Unix way, and it works well with files of any size in Cygwin.

Even ls, or wc -c report bogus results with >2GB files. less does not work even if I want to look at just the first few hundreds of lines (and "head -n 1000 | less" is a horrible workaround).

> Cygwin commands that run slower than Windows counterparts are typically those that are syscall heavy

Most unix commands are syscall/filesystem/IO heavy, after all they are file utilities. What you say with find is exactly what I'm talking about. I find that the unix tools ported to Win32 and compiled with mingw are significantly faster.

[barrkel]

Eh? What you state about ls, wc and less is directly contrary to my experience. I'm so astonished I created a 30GB test file and tested it:

     $ cmd /c dir k.txt
     Volume in drive C is CobraRoot
     Volume Serial Number is 02D8-502C
    
     Directory of C:\Users\barrkel\AppData\Local\Temp
    
    2012-07-01  15:24    31,292,160,000 k.txt
                   1 File(s) 31,292,160,000 bytes
                   0 Dir(s)  142,087,471,104 bytes free
    
    $ du -h k.txt
    30G     k.txt
    $ ls -l k.txt
    -rw-r--r--+ 1 barrkel None 31292160000 Jul  1 15:24 k.txt
    $ wc -c k.txt
    31292160000 k.txt
    $ time wc -l k.txt
    6400000000 k.txt
    
    real    1m5.651s
    user    0m46.207s
    sys     0m8.642s

66 seconds to read 30GB isn't too bad, that's over 400MB/sec. (It's an SSD.) When I said directory listings could be slow, I meant directory listings, not general I/O; simple read() and write() do not need translation (provided you aren't using Cygwin text-mode mount options, which are not recommended).

    $ less k.txt

this works just fine; when I do > to go to the end of the file, it goes there immediately, but stays busy calculating line numbers (it's scanning the whole file); if I cancel with Ctrl+C, it stops, just like it does on other Unix OSes.

PS: It's the mingw tools that don't work properly! I tried it a couple of times, but all the incompatibilities made me give up pretty quickly.

[ot]

Thanks, that's very interesting, maybe I should give cygwin another try. Last time it was a couple of years ago and I had all the mentioned problems, then I decided to wait until a 64bit version before trying it again...

[barrkel]

If I had to guess, I'd say somehow you ended up with text-mode mounts in your previous experience. The default, and recommended, is binary mode, but you're given a choice on install. It affects C programs that specify "t" to fopen() and friends, and causes Cygwin to convert line endings to and from DOS. But it's more trouble than it's worth.