amazingly long ls times

amazingly long ls times

[Tom Dorgan]

hello,

been using cygwin for around 2 years. been keeping up with the updates.
running on win2k. "lately" have noticed ls seems sluggish. check this
out:
$ time ls -aF
<86 filenames deleted>
real    0m9.224s
user    0m0.060s
sys     0m0.090s
$

this seems typical. my disk has been scrubbed with de-fragmenter. was
using ~123/256mb at time of command. doesnt seem right.

thanks,
tom dorgan.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: amazingly long ls times

[Earnie Boyd]

Tom Dorgan wrote:
> 
> hello,
> 
> been using cygwin for around 2 years. been keeping up with the updates.
> running on win2k. "lately" have noticed ls seems sluggish. check this
> out:
> $ time ls -aF
> <86 filenames deleted>
> real    0m9.224s
> user    0m0.060s
> sys     0m0.090s
> $
> 
> this seems typical. my disk has been scrubbed with de-fragmenter. was
> using ~123/256mb at time of command. doesnt seem right.
> 

The developers are currently aware of the slowness and are working at
getting responsiveness improved.  I've just submitted a patch to Newlib
which will help with your reported long ls time once the patch is
approved.

Earnie.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: amazingly long ls times

[Tom Dorgan]

cool. thanks for your time.
--- Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tom Dorgan wrote:
> > 
> > hello,
> > 
> > been using cygwin for around 2 years. been keeping up with the
> updates.
> > running on win2k. "lately" have noticed ls seems sluggish. check
> this
> > out:
> > $ time ls -aF
> > <86 filenames deleted>
> > real    0m9.224s
> > user    0m0.060s
> > sys     0m0.090s
> > $
> > 
> > this seems typical. my disk has been scrubbed with de-fragmenter.
> was
> > using ~123/256mb at time of command. doesnt seem right.
> > 
> 
> The developers are currently aware of the slowness and are working at
> getting responsiveness improved.  I've just submitted a patch to
> Newlib
> which will help with your reported long ls time once the patch is
> approved.
> 
> Earnie.
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: amazingly long ls times

[bowman]

From: "Tom Dorgan" <tdorgan@yahoo.com>
>
> $ time ls -aF
> <86 filenames deleted>
> real    0m9.224s
> user    0m0.060s
> sys     0m0.090s


this is what I get doing the same on /usr/bin. this is WinME, 1 Ghz Athlon.
it is sluggish compared
to the native dir.

real    0m7.250s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.000s




--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple