masta wrote: > Garance A Drosihn wrote: > >> At 3:09 PM -0500 4/21/04, Eric Anderson wrote: >> >>> Garance A Drosihn wrote: >>> >>> I suppose this is one of those "who needs files bigger than 2gb?" >>> things.. >> >> >> >> Perhaps, but as a general rule we'd like our system utilities to >> at least *work* in extreme situations. This is something I'd >> love to dig into if I had the time, but I'm not sure I have the >> time right now. >> > I'm not sure how we can improve this situation. Considering that an > `ls -l` is forced to stat every file, and store that info until the > time comes to dump it to the tty for the human operator. The problem > seems somewhat geometric, and un-fixable unless you want to find a way > to page out the stat information of each file to a dump file of some > sort, then cat that info back to the operator upon conclusion of the > main loop. Even then, list 2 million files will be excesive just > storing the file names for display. Bare minimum - du should work, if you ask me. ls is almost a separate issue - the only time you need to 'ls' a directory with that many files is maybe if you needed to use them in a script I suppose. I did it out of curiousity mostly, but du is an essential tool in this case.. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. ------------------------------------------------------------------Received on Wed Apr 21 2004 - 11:51:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:52 UTC