X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Paul Maier" To: References: <99C327BE35E54B81B97E7DCAF53941A2 AT sulzer DOT de> <4D4F628A DOT 5000000 AT cygwin DOT com> Subject: AW: How to make "ls" as quick as a Windows "dir"? Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 23:25:30 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <4D4F628A.5000000@cygwin.com> X-Sender: svn-user AT web DOT de X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 > The best thing to do is to skip any flags for 'ls'. If > cygwin has to open > the file to fill in a particular piece of data, you're going > to see significant > delays on a slow file-system/driver. So the difference is, that "ls -l" openes all files, reading in all bytes to count them; while Windows "dir" gets the file size from the directory? Paul. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple