On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Zhao Li <lizhao.informat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > I found there is a big difference of time performance between "ls" function > and "find" function in Gluster File System > <https://gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%20Gu > ide/GlusterFS%20Introduction/>. > Here is the minimal working example. > > mkdir tmp > touch tmp/{000..300}.txt > > time find ./ -path '*tmp*' -name '*.txt'> /dev/null > real 0m42.629s > user 0m0.675s > sys 0m1.438s > > time ls tmp/*.txt > /dev/null > real 0m0.042s > user 0m0.003s > sys 0m0.003s > > So I am wondering what C code you use for "ls" and "find" and how you > explain "*" in "ls" and "find" to lead to this big difference in Gluster > File System. > > Thanks a lot. > Zhao > There are several differences, first note that "ls" is not the one finding the files. The shell is expanding *.txt then ls is passed all the files as arguments. *.txt is not recursive so only the files directly under /tmp will be search In your find command, -path matches the whole path (/ included) and your find command will descend in all the directories, whether they match tmp or not, so depending on where you started to search from, it may search your whole / partition. A more comparable command would be: find /tmp -name tmp -o -prune -name '*.txt' -print or if your find command supports it: find /tmp -maxdepth 1 -name '*.txt' Note also that ls and find are separate tools that are not developed along with bash. For gnu find: https://www.gnu.org/software/findutils/ For gnu ls: https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/coreutils.html But there are also other implementation for various systems.
