> [ ... ] "ls -f"? That just reads the directory files raw, > and it is "supposed" to be faster in many cases. [ ... ] Whether it is 'raw' or not, it does not 'stat' the inodes pointed at by directory entries, so avoids that particularly expensive operation. In that it is not that different from 'ls' without '-l', except that on many systems the string "ls" is an alias for "ls -l", so to do 'ls' without '-l' one should type '/bin/ls' or '\ls'. That aliasing is particularly terrible for filesystems like Lustre for which 'stat' implies a network roundtrip BTW. In the present case it is more interesting to compare '/bin/ls', '/bin/ls -l -n' and '/bin/ls -l', in particular because the '-n' option avoids the uid-username lookup that seems to be slow. Try using 'ltrace -T -e __lxstat,readdir,getpwuid /bin/ls ...' to see what is going on with the various options. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
