Also, the storage is RAID-10, so striped and who knows what kind of caching goes on in the hardware controller.
The numbers are not that useful. It's notable that rsync:rm went from 1:12 in his old test to 1:3 in his new test, but we really don't know anything about why.
FWIW (very little), I did a similar test on a convenient OSX box (HFS+, 1000000 zero-byte files, single spindle), and rm won. rsync was next (+25%), straight C came in a little higher, then ruby (20% over rsync). Maybe BSD rm is awesome.
Comments
Also, the storage is RAID-10, so striped and who knows what kind of caching goes on in the hardware controller.
The numbers are not that useful. It's notable that rsync:rm went from 1:12 in his old test to 1:3 in his new test, but we really don't know anything about why.
FWIW (very little), I did a similar test on a convenient OSX box (HFS+, 1000000 zero-byte files, single spindle), and rm won. rsync was next (+25%), straight C came in a little higher, then ruby (20% over rsync). Maybe BSD rm is awesome.