John Craig wrote: > Richard Gaskin wrote: >> Turns out my test wasn't all that useful, since the OS has a >> bit of a bottleneck grabbing the info from 12,000+ files in >> a single directory. >> >> Running the same test on a folder that has only a few hundred files >> gives a per-file speed more on par with what we might expect: >> >> # File: 329 Total: 9ms Per file: 0.027356ms >> >> MacBook Pro, 2.16 GHz, 2MB RAM > > For only 1 folder containing 34,782 files on MY machine (3GHz, 512Mb > RAM) which is not running any services. > > Time taken to get 'the detailed files'; > 26888 millisecs = 26.888 seconds > > Size of output generated by rev for 'the detailed files'; > 2543957 bytes = 2.5Mb > > On a busy server, the results could be considerably greater. The > fact that it amounts to just under 0.8 millisecs per file is > irrelevant - If I need a few (or a few hundred) file sizes, I > still need to wait for the entire output to be generated. > Economical?
Given that the biggest bottleneck here appears to be the OS itself, what do you propose which would be more economical?
-- Richard Gaskin Managing Editor, revJournal _______________________________________________________ Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
