On 16Mar2012 23:49, fred smith <fredex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: | On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 09:39:03PM -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: | > If that were so, 'ls' would take as long as Nautilus (or Dolphin or | > whatever) to list a large directory. I don't have any huge directories | > to test, but I'm sceptical. | | Hmm. you do seem to be correct: | | time ls | wc -l | 105612 | | real 0m2.582s | user 0m2.429s | sys 0m0.163s | | I know that on (much) older systems, large directories were inherently | slow to traverse. I guess I shouldn't assume that is still the case. Gah. Please compare apple with apples. Run the same test with "ls -l" and compare, then think about the difference. The consider that many GUI browsers try to give cues that a directory has contents - that needs even more work. Finally, run strace against Nautilus and other tools and see how much real work they're doing. It can be illuminating. Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson <cs@xxxxxxxxxx> DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ The reason that God was able to create the world in seven days is that he didn't have to worry about the installed base. - Enzo Torresi -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
