X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <468ADE76.9E261DCA@dessent.net> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:40:38 -0700 From: Brian Dessent X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Slow directory listing References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Anton Ivanov wrote: > I experience a problem whereby 'ls' of a directory takes upwards of 20 > seconds. I've searched around the archives and found reports of issues > that could be similar (i.e. slow bash completion) but it didn't seem > like any action was taken. Cygwin is slow. This is by design. 20 seconds even sounds pretty fast for a large directory. It's not clear whether you mean you were doing "ls -l" or just "ls", but in either case expect to wait. In order to provide a POSIX environment Cygwin has to synthesize a number things that the system does not provide, or does not provide in a convenient or efficient interface. Examples: symlinks, the executable mode bit, and .exe-magic. Just running 'ls' means that every file in the directory has to be indivually queried and opened (and in some cases read from) in order to provide all the fields in the POSIX stat struct, compared to running the native "dir" command which can simply read out the entries from the directory and nothing else. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/