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: <004001c290c6$1498d580$437517d2@astra03>
From: "Carlo Florendo" <carlo AT astra DOT ph>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Cc: <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
References: <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0211191126261 DOT 4275-100000 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Subject: Re: ls problem
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:52:45 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700

----- 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/