----- Original Message ----- From: "Igor Pechtchanski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Carlo Florendo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/
