On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 02:24:25PM -0700, Rob Sims wrote: > I don't agree with your time results: (...) > So yes, the second run was much shorter than the first, but only > because it was second, not because it was inherently faster. Beware > the effects of caching when benchmarking.
Good point. In my case `find' is about two times faster in the second run. But the `ls' line still takes more than 4 minutes, also in a second run. The caching probably isn't working because I haven't got enough memory or because I start doing other things on my computer as I get bored. :) With smaller listings it does help though. -- Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/ [Dutch/Nederlands] "Let your advance worrying become advance thinking and planning." - Winston Churchill -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
