Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id:	<5.1.0.14.2.20021119074303.0276a4d0@pop3.cris.com>
X-Sender:	rrschulz AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com
Date:	Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:45:09 -0800
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Randall R Schulz <rrschulz AT cris DOT com>
Subject:	Re: ls problem
In-Reply-To:	<003b01c29030$464e9420$437517d2@astra03>
References:	<Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0211172332260 DOT 4275-100000 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Mime-Version:	1.0

Carlo,

I think your next step must be to run "ls" under "strace" and see where the 
excess time (presumably idle time) is going.

Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA


At 17:00 2002-11-19, Carlo Florendo wrote:
>Hi Igor,
>
>I tried disabling ntsec and "ls -l" is still slow.  I'm using 
>1.3.15-cygwin-1-3-15-1.  "ls -l" and "ls -ln" takes almost the same amount 
>of time.    On a directory with 3 short text files, the difference, when I 
>timed "ls -l" and "ls -b", is still considerable.
>
>fcarlo AT ZEUS~
>$ time ls -b
>a  b  test
>
>real    0m0.024s
>user    0m0.030s
>sys     0m0.015s
>
>fcarlo AT ZEUS ~
>$ time ls -l
>total 11
>-rw-r--r--    1 fcarlo   None            5 Nov 19 13:58 a
>-rw-r--r--    1 fcarlo   None            5 Nov 19 13:58 b
>-rw-r--r--    1 fcarlo   None         8283 Nov 19 13:59 test
>
>real    0m1.819s
>user    0m0.030s
>sys     0m0.000s
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Carlo Florendo


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -