Re: Counting the files in a directory....
- From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:21:07 +0100
On 11.01.2008 19:14, Kyle Schmitt wrote:
Entries seems to be fairly identical to collect, and it does look nicer...
but yea still slow.
As I said: it's the IO for crowded directories (see also Mike's reply).
The problem with caching is that we only keep quarantine directories
around for 10 days, due to their size and the relative rarity of us
needing to pull something out of it. One reason for writing this as a
script is that we recover rarely enough that whoever is doing it
forgot how to recover. Still, it's often enough that we want to be
able to do it easily.
In other cases than a mail system, caching would be a very good idea though.
I am not sure I understand why you think it is a bad idea. If you only cache the number of files per directory where is the issue? Or is this script not invoked regularly? Probably I am missing a bit of your use case.
I'll try and read more of the C stuff for handling files/directories
in unix. I can hold out hope for awhile.
Won't help. It's really the size of the directory. Maybe you give a little more detail about your script and when it's used so we can come up with better suggestions.
Cheers
robert
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Counting the files in a directory....
- From: Kyle Schmitt
- Re: Counting the files in a directory....
- References:
- Counting the files in a directory....
- From: Kyle Schmitt
- Re: Counting the files in a directory....
- From: Robert Klemme
- Re: Counting the files in a directory....
- From: Kyle Schmitt
- Counting the files in a directory....
- Prev by Date: Re: Trying to squeeze a variable in here => ...
- Next by Date: Re: Loop question
- Previous by thread: Re: Counting the files in a directory....
- Next by thread: Re: Counting the files in a directory....
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|