Redirection to log file is quicker than to null : Why?
Moderator: DosItHelp
Re: Redirection to log file is quicker than to null : Why?
Redirecting to CON is nothing new. That we know has always been slow.
Re: Redirection to log file is quicker than to null : Why?
Win10 Home, 32 bit
Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU Z3735F @ 1.33GHz (4 CPUs), ~1.33 GHz
2GB RAM
Avira Free Antivir switched on
switched off
Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU Z3735F @ 1.33GHz (4 CPUs), ~1.33 GHz
2GB RAM
Avira Free Antivir switched on
Code: Select all
File Size: 2269852080
NUL Redirect: 0 Days 0 Hours 4 Minutes And 46 Seconds
FILE Redirect: 0 Days 0 Hours 9 Minutes And 11 Seconds
switched off
Code: Select all
File Size: 2269852080
NUL Redirect: 0 Days 0 Hours 5 Minutes And 1 Seconds
FILE Redirect: 0 Days 0 Hours 10 Minutes And 8 Seconds
Re: Redirection to log file is quicker than to null : Why?
The common denominator sounds like Windows 10. I can test that on my wife's laptop at home.
Re: Redirection to log file is quicker than to null : Why?
I was bitten by the same problem some time ago.
At that moment I didn't have the needed time to do more tests and I forgot it. Anyway I tested it in XP, 7 32b and 7 64b and in all of them the type and dir commands redirected to nul were much slower than redirected to a file.
At that moment I didn't have the needed time to do more tests and I forgot it. Anyway I tested it in XP, 7 32b and 7 64b and in all of them the type and dir commands redirected to nul were much slower than redirected to a file.