Apparently,
ls
and related utils show a dismaying performance there. So I wanted to check that for myself on my own Linux backup directory on my ext3
external disk, where I store 100.000 files approx. (Note: I keep time stamped copies of my directory structure with hard links to a single directory where I store the actual files so as to avoid data multiplication).True,
ls
and ls -lrt
are slow, very slow there. However, ls -lrt > /tmp/ls.txt
is as fast as you could expect for a 7.5MB file. Also, touch kk
and rm kk
are as fast as in an empty directory.In summary, standard tools such as
ls
and find
may not be ready to deal with huge directories. The sorting abilities of ls
may scale as bad as O(n^2)
in some circumstances. Also, shell expansion (for *
, say) may not be very efficient. However, accessing files for creation, editing or deletion may be blazingly fast even in relatively oldish file systems such as ext3
on the cheapest hardware.
No comments:
Post a Comment