| 1 |
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 04:49:09PM -0500, Penguin Lover reader@×××××××.com squawked: |
| 2 |
> Is there any way to speed up the du command? I mean short of having |
| 3 |
> cron run it on target directories and store results. (not really |
| 4 |
> speeding up but at least not having to wait for a result) |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I've seen various mention of du being slow but don't recall any |
| 7 |
> mentions of how to speed it up. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I use Reiserfs with default sizes. In some situations like a large |
| 10 |
> cache of nntp messages of several GB. I might wait 5-10 minutes or more |
| 11 |
> for du to get the size of the directory. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Are there other file systems that can return a result of `du' faster? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I'm curious how `df' computes sizes so much quicker. Even after |
| 16 |
> rm'ing a large amount of data... `df' sees the difference right away. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Or maybe there is some other tool or technique that can quickly tell |
| 19 |
> me the size of a directory or set of directories. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I am pretty sure the problem with du is that it actually looks, |
| 22 |
recursively, at every single file and computes the size that way. So |
| 23 |
the time you have to wait is mostly due to disk IO (and caching would |
| 24 |
also explain why if you run du twice in a row the answer returns much |
| 25 |
more quickly). So, if you know what the bottle-neck directory is (for |
| 26 |
example, the directory of nntp messages), the tricks in |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
http://gentoo-wiki.com/TIP_Speeding_up_portage |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
should probably work just as well. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
HTH, |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
W |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
"You're very sure of your facts, " he said at last, "I |
| 37 |
couldn't trust the thinking of a man who takes the Universe |
| 38 |
- if there is one - for granted. " |
| 39 |
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 533 days, 21:55 |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives