: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: ls -l takes a forever to finish.
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:28:23 -0600
Mark Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this program seems to have the same issues with it.
[Please don't top post.]
Of course, if ls -lf has those issues, sortls.py will
have
]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: ls -l takes a forever to finish.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:42:44 -0500
Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In response to Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ls | wc
strange. i did
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/b]$ a=0;while
Subject: Re: ls -l takes a forever to finish.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:42:44 -0500
Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In response to Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ls | wc
strange. i did
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/b]$ a=0;while [ $a -lt 1 ];do mkdir
$a;a=$[a+1];done
completed 25 seconds
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 05:49 ,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] moved his mouse, rebooted
for the change to take effect, and then said:
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:42:44 -0500
From: Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ls -l takes a forever to finish.
In response to Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED
Is a partition close to full, use df to see that.
doesn't matter as ls read, not writes.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ls | wc
strange. i did
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/b]$ a=0;while [ $a -lt 1 ];do mkdir $a;a=$[a+1];done
completed 25 seconds on 1Ghz CPU
ls takes 0.1 seconds user time, ls -l takes 0.3 second user time.
unless you have 486/33 or slower system there is something wrong.
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
ls | wc
strange. i did
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/b]$ a=0;while [ $a -lt 1 ];do mkdir $a;a=$[a+1];done
completed 25 seconds on 1Ghz CPU
ls takes 0.1 seconds user time, ls -l takes 0.3 second user time.
unless you have 486/33 or slower system there is something wrong.
In response to Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ls | wc
strange. i did
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/b]$ a=0;while [ $a -lt 1 ];do mkdir $a;a=$[a+1];done
completed 25 seconds on 1Ghz CPU
ls takes 0.1 seconds user time, ls -l takes 0.3 second user time.
unless you have 486/33 or
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:42:44 -0500
Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In response to Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ls | wc
strange. i did
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/b]$ a=0;while [ $a -lt 1 ];do mkdir
$a;a=$[a+1];done
completed 25 seconds on 1Ghz CPU
ls takes 0.1
ls takes 0.1 seconds user time, ls -l takes 0.3 second user time.
unless you have 486/33 or slower system there is something wrong.
Has anyone tried fsck and/or smartmontools on the drive? Maybe something
like Spinrite?
he stated that CPU load is near 100% so it's not disk problem
unless you have 486/33 or slower system there is something wrong.
Another possible scenario is that the directory is badly fragmented.
Unless something has changed since I last researched this (which is
it is for sure.
the fix would be
mv /usr/home /usr/oldhome;mkdir /usr/home;mv
I guess that replacing qsort(3) in
/usr/src/lib/libc/gen/fts.c:fts_sort()
with another sort algorithm which doesn't
expose this anomaly would solve that problem.
for sure his /home wasn't worst case. it's just average case so it's not
that problem.
it is for sure.
the fix would be
mv /usr/home /usr/oldhome;mkdir /usr/home;mv /usr/oldhome/* /usr/home
and after successfull move - rm -rf /usr/home
I really hope you meant: rm -rf /usr/oldhome
Also, mv just moves pointers around, wouldn't a cp -Rp be needed instead?
the fix would be
mv /usr/home /usr/oldhome;mkdir /usr/home;mv /usr/oldhome/* /usr/home
and after successfull move - rm -rf /usr/home
I like this idea very much...
It results in 100% data loss of your /usr/home contents...
;-)
___
1.0K 0B 100%/var/named/dev
Thanks
mark
- Original Message -
From: Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mark Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: ls -l takes a forever to finish.
Is a partition close to full, use
, November 27, 2007 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: ls -l takes a forever to finish.
Mark Evans wrote:
I'm using FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE. When I run ls -l it takes forever for
the it to complete. top shows that the ls -l command uses about 98% of
the CPU doing the time. If I run ls I do not experience any problem
: Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mark Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: ls -l takes a forever to finish.
Mark Evans wrote:
I'm using FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE. When I run ls -l it takes forever for
the it to complete. top
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 09:44 -0600, Mark Evans wrote:
No we are not using NIS.
it is a large directory i am listing. actually it is the /usr/home
directory, and is probably the largest on the system. However ls -l runs
for close to six minutesand spends the 10 seconds scrolling the screen
ls | wc
returns88368836 71583
Thanks
Mark
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Mohler
To: Mark Evans
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: ls -l takes a forever to finish.
HOW large is the directory?
ls | wc -l
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:44:03 -0600
Mark Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No we are not using NIS.
it is a large directory i am listing. actually it is the /usr/home
directory, and is probably the largest on the system. However ls -l
runs for close to six minutesand spends the 10 seconds
I'm using FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE. When I run ls -l it takes forever for the it
to complete. top shows that the ls -l command uses about 98% of the CPU doing
the time. If I run ls I do not experience any problem. anyone have any
ideas?
Thanks
Mark
On Nov 27, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Mark Evans wrote:
I'm using FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE. When I run ls -l it takes forever
for the it to complete. top shows that the ls -l command uses
about 98% of the CPU doing the time. If I run ls I do not
experience any problem. anyone have any ideas?
Is a partition close to full, use df to see that.
Is ls -l aliased to something else that is digging into your directory
tree, like when you're in /usr and type du?
brian
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Mark Evans wrote:
I'm using FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE. When I run ls -l it takes forever for the it to
Mark Evans wrote:
I'm using FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE. When I run ls -l it takes forever for the it to complete. top
shows that the ls -l command uses about 98% of the CPU doing the time. If I run ls
I do not experience any problem. anyone have any ideas?
Are you using NIS for user/group
24 matches
Mail list logo
