X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=qM Efd0lioVc7VeDlahxwE0yH8pBadoZx4rHlNdt+lZb+vUPutBJ2RU4YPA3stdAR7l CIwu2JD1hKjfWNKZuZ8XnmEGnJgXihUDtLv17b3cnkMjOvi4jk/YEnl3dbAGwubN s+Ff6DaCG4PfiZTTl4NFQxQnI4vRDaTIBvCcBXwNA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s=default; bh=EZGwhXTB uJuFmgN/MgOdE2PfnJ4=; b=d82h8HXfe23DyiNXVaJfr/c/CO8Hw6DRS68w+ebe SrNmrzTOJw9ItIOwSyM5mglMLT8LdQQaM98DJGevx9WBSs45/wWqSoCKUB9PVn+r UxHzdGtDbnAB6kA6I46V/mrCmvl6ZOAmqusxHG92jml/4Yiz4Jr9M1U1zFRF1h8q xWY= 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 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=sk:stromek, stromeko AT nexgo DOT de, stromekonexgode, U*Stromeko X-HELO: mail-yk0-f181.google.com X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=yAqseYi2o6AoXa7ZhiTxvF92rIiDxdZZqjneoz1mMiE=; b=MaofQVqhxGLFkovhxnTSH0AVWF8BvZ3mStEVcC0a2Ttt00KLWkcYdmTq9EMRzQGIcl CagAuUXtXy+QZIPz4Qg3i91j3ezE6DPEDYNzKTQPYAujC6E++jxKE5AGo/+x0d1nurW+ UbicFtto+S9iv7QnWjuI7I8TDjJQhPgtR3F4mD+A5rCfdeJNNgs/x+WkPDNi01ad8+ZX 7rDVBq9VosQ5rwE/oQu6x+MztTb6BBZ96wUHYr+fypAOu7PzHGYjQV5wApo8dokZuh9x SPFMYxO9ZU+xAykJzSqXI7g9IQsbYRvU7w6/dUBmcM1mXty7sxYiEsV22IvuugGWOcti gDQg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmQhiIrQnw0LItsJW8n3+IPsZFn5RBGRJgIew3FbnR+/JSK1pkOZht9GhJQ/jAQAc9KasfvPbeOpNJB/sykTBEZuY3gLg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.37.13.139 with SMTP id 133mr14212682ybn.31.1453391581928; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:53:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:53:01 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Performance of "ls -F" From: "William M. (Mike) Miller" To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Achim Gratz wrote: > I am finding a large performance gap between plain "ls" and "ls -F" in a > directory with many files on a network share (NetApp disguised as NTFS if > that matters). This has been there for quite a while, I've just now > realized what the reason was (I have "ls -F" as an alias for "ls" in my > interactive shells). In a directory with 1300 files, a plain "ls" completes > in 0.3s, while "ls -F" requires about 95s. Determining the file class seems > to require around 70...90ms per file, which I can confirm also for > directories with a lot less files. What's involved in that determination > that takes such a long time? The overhead appears to be in checking for executable files; using --file-type instead of -F, which just omits the '*' category, reduces the time for ls in one of my (local) large directories from over one second to 0.04 seconds. -- William M. (Mike) Miller | Edison Design Group william DOT m DOT miller AT gmail DOT com -- 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