Il giorno Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Alexander Perry così ha scritto:
|From: Alexander Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 08:43:59 -0800
|Subject: [Ltsp-discuss] can't ls in directory >90,000 files
|
|There is a "-U" option on 'ls'
> On a more general note, I have a directory on my linux server which has
> over 90,000 files. when I do a dir | wc -l I receive a number of >46,000
> (which I take to be >90,000 files since dir gives me 2 columns of file
> names.
> However, I can't ls. I have waited for up to 15 minutes. C
Title: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] can't ls in directory >90,000 files
I have a system running on RH 7.1 that is a monitoring station for 12 network video cameras. Each of the cameras uploads a jpg image every 2-3 seconds to their own directory on the server. On the server itself, I have
Dear Rose, David ,
Once you wrote about "[Ltsp-discuss] can't ls in directory >90,000 files":
RD> Hello all.
RD> On a more general note, I have a directory on my linux server which has
RD> over 90,000 files. when I do a dir | wc -l I receive a number of >46,000
R
What filesystem type are you using on your server? I was pretty sure
ext2 had a file limit size of some number of thousand files in a given
directory. Don't know what that limiting number is. You may want to
look into a journalling filesystem on your server (i.e., reiserfs) if
you don't hav
David,
90,000 file is huge!!
Still, ls should handle it. Keep in mind that ls is going to
sort the entries. It could be that ls has a really lousy sort
algorithm.
I't try running "top" while you do the ls on that directory, and
see if ls is chewing up massive amounts of cpu time.
I think if
Hello all.
On a more general note, I have a directory on my linux server which has
over 90,000 files. when I do a dir | wc -l I receive a number of >46,000
(which I take to be >90,000 files since dir gives me 2 columns of file
names.
However, I can't ls. I have waited for up to 15 minutes.
