Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/11/19/21:52:01
----- Original Message -----
From: "Igor Pechtchanski" <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
To: "Carlo Florendo" <carlo AT astra DOT ph>
Cc: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: ls problem
>
> Try running 'ls -l' first to pull the directory contents and the stat
> records for the files into memory, and then repeating both 'time ls' and
> 'time ls -l' commands, and see if that makes a difference in the timings.
Ok, done! I actually repeated the operation many times. However, there is
still considerable difference. I'm wondering why "ls -l" is slower now than
my previous version of cygwin. They're both using fileutils-4.1.1. I try
the same thing in my linux box and doing "ls -l" doesn't take that slow.
It's only with this new version of cygwin that I experienced a slow response
to "ls -l".
>
> FYI, 'ls -l' is *supposed* to be slower, because it accesses more
> information. On my machine (P3 700MHz running Win2k Pro SP3), the timings
> are as follows:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Carlo Florendo wrote:
That's right. It's supposed to be slower because it accesses more
information but the speed should not be very signiicantly slower.
BTW, I'm using a P4 1.7GHz, Win2k. My home PC is a P3 600MHz and it runs on
the older version of cygwin. Doing an "ls -l" on the slower P3 PC with the
older version of cygwin is still faster than doing a "ls -l" on my P4 with
the newer version of cygwin.
What actually happens is that after ls prints the "total <number>", it
processes for a while--this is where the slower part begins, then outputs
the directory entries. It takes more than 1 second to print the directory
entries. Still any hints?
Thanks a lot!
Carlo
____________________
Carlo Florendo
Astra (Philippines), Inc.
Email: carlo AT astra DOT ph
Web: http://www.astra.ph
--
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 -