I'm not really sure how could I adapt your command to use '>' instead of touch, but shouldn't '>' be faster if using 3 processes too?
I mean, comparing one single execution of touch with ">", ">" is faster. Thanks for the answer people, Tomas is right about the touch process. Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph] Técnico em Informática - UTFPR [2012]. Estudante de Engenharia de Computação - UTFPR. 2016-02-18 16:05 GMT-02:00 Jean-Baptiste Thomas <cau2jeaf1ho...@laposte.net> : > > *samueloph@teste:~/foo$ time ( for i in $(seq 0 9999) ; do touch $i ; > done > > )real 0m10.245suser 0m3.332ssys 0m1.576s* > > Using shell built-in ">" to create 10000 files: > > > > *samueloph@teste:~/foo$ time ( for i in $(seq 0 9999) ; do > $i ; done > > )real 0m0.742suser 0m0.064ssys 0m0.120s* > > > > ">" is at least 10x faster than touch. > > Your spirit of healthy scepticism is admirable but what these > tests compare is not so much the time it takes to create a file > with ">" vs touch(1) than the time it takes to create a process > relative to the time it takes for the shell to iterate through > a for() loop. > > Try "seq 0 9999 | xargs touch" (3 process creations instead of > 10,001). It will almost certainly be even faster than the ">" > version. > >
