At this point, it still didn't need to dig that deep into the actual files and perhaps if it didn't guess by extension it only had to determine the "magic" of a few large files which goes very quick. Since DaisyDisk is only showing you the top 10 or 20 space hogs, it doesn't need to go into details to figure out what the smaller files are (notice it conveniently lumps them into "Smaller Files 750MB" or some label). Users) then you repeat the process but only focusing on that level.
If they drill down into the directories (e.g.
#USE DAISYDISK TO REMOVE CHUNKSTORAGE FILES FROM SKETCH CODE#
With the du output, you could quickly determine the view of the top level directories you can filter that in code and make a representation as DaisyDisk does and just show sized pie slices. The file extension route is fast, examining the file is obviously much slower since you have to pull up the file. The only way you would know what a file is would be to make a guess by the file extension or look at the file to determine its type (e.g.
mind you, the filesystem might have been cached after whichever went first for timing purposes, so the second run will have that advantage.ĭu is pretty quick since it just looks at directory entries and reports path and file sizes. I've never used DaisyDisk, but judging by the video demo on their site, it seems they're using a few tricks to make it fast.įirst off, are you sure that du is slower? Try running du / >/dev/null and see if it is any faster than DaisyDisk.
0 kommentar(er)
