From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/11972 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sean Doran Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: opening speed for nnml groups Date: 04 Sep 1997 16:55:01 +0200 Message-ID: <52afhti0xm.fsf@sean.ebone.net> References: <0f4t82zbjt.fsf@odin.mjolner.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035151593 1158 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 22:06:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:06:33 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from xemacs.org (xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu [128.174.252.16]) by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA20342 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 09:07:44 -0700 Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA05549 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:03:21 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from claymore.vcinet.com (claymore.vcinet.com [208.205.12.23]) by ifi.uio.no with SMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:55:15 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 8978 invoked by uid 504); 4 Sep 1997 14:55:04 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 8975 invoked from network); 4 Sep 1997 14:55:04 -0000 Original-Received: from sean.ebone.net (130.228.11.231) by claymore.vcinet.com with SMTP; 4 Sep 1997 14:55:03 -0000 Original-Received: (from smd@localhost) by sean.ebone.net (8.8.6/8.8.5) id QAA13879; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:55:02 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Lars Balker Rasmussen's message of "03 Sep 1997 17:01:26 +0200" Original-Lines: 59 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.64/Emacs 19.34 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:11972 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:11972 Lars Balker Rasmussen writes: > % mkdir test > % perl -e 'foreach $a (1..10000) { open FOO, ">test/$a" }' > % time rm -rf test > 0.60u 11.18s 1:55.40 10.2% > % uname -a > SunOS heimdal 5.5.1 Generic_103640-08 sun4u sparc Ich, perl is a pig. This makes me feel good about my choice for a scripting shell: : sean.ebone.net ; uname -a NetBSD sean.ebone.net 1.2G NetBSD 1.2G (EBONE) #0: Sun Aug 17 20:19:52 CEST 1997 smd@sean.ebone.net:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/EBONE i386 : sean.ebone.net ; scsh Scsh 0.5 > (create-directory "test") > (run (time scsh -c "(let loop ((i 1)) (close-output-port (open-output-file (string-append \"test/\" (number->string i)))) (if (< i 10001) (loop (+ i 1))))")) 175.68 real 6.71 user 68.59 sys > (run (time rm -rf test)) 94.45 real 0.12 user 3.38 sys > (create-directory "test") > (run (time perl -e "foreach $a (1..10000) { open FOO, \">test/$a\" }")) 198.90 real 5.81 user 68.99 sys > (run (time scsh -c "(begin (for-each (lambda (f) (delete-file f)) (glob \"./test/*\")) (delete-directory \"test\"))")) 89.79 real 7.71 user 7.83 sys Well I cheat in that I use a statically-linked scshvm, which makes an impressive difference. :) > ls is primarily slow because it has to sort the files. Yes, quite likely. The globbing is certainly the most CPU-intensive part of the quick rm equivalent. > But of course, the Unix filesystem gets slower as more files are in a > directory, but it's not _that_ bad. Ayup. I can't see any reason to blame the filesystem for nnml's slow behaviour on large groups. The obvious CPU eaters are mostly in preparing the *Summary* buffer, in the work done upon exiting the group, and in anything else that does significant marching through and manipulation of the *Summary* buffer. Copying, respooling or moving articles also has ugly time consumption properties having to do with maintaining .overview files. Sean.