And on an Ultra-60 running Solaris 7 w/UFS: bash-2.04$ time /bin/ls | wc 63975 63975 1971245 real 0m2.213s user 0m1.160s sys 0m0.890s bash-2.04$ time ls | wc 63975 63975 1971253 real 2m19.965s user 0m1.490s sys 0m16.340s bash-2.04$
Sped it up "just a little bit" :-) On Wednesday 27 June 2001 07:03, Tomasz Papszun wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 at 13:25:17 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 01:45:23AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote: > > > SO... by increasing conf-split to 97 (from the default of 20 > > > something afaik), each directory ends up only having a hundred or so > > > files. Doing "ls" now is far speedier. > > > [...] > > > > this is actually a well-known limitation of ext2fs and similar > > file-systems - as soon as you get more than a thousand or so files in a > > directory, performance takes a nosedive. > > BTW, a tip: if you've got "ls" aliased (for instance as > 'ls --color=auto -F') then you can shorten this long execution of "ls". > Just issue "/bin/ls" instead of "ls". The difference is very big. It can > be as 1:200 (yeah!). I've just done a comparison in a directory > with > 33000 files. > > "/bin/ls | wc" has taken 1 (one) second. "ls | wc" lasted 3 minutes and 26 > seconds. Yes, near 3 and a half minutes! > > This is because "ls" with additional information (e.g. file type, which is > needed to colour a listing) needs more time to gather this information. > I don't know what difference would be for reiserfs or xfs filesystems. > > Hope it helps a little :-) . -- "To me vi is Zen. To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated. You discover truth everytime you use it." [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
