eza
How is this better than the lsd tool? #679
Replies: 9 comments 13 replies
-
|
I think it's really a matter of personal preference. Exa is a few years older than LSD and already had a large user base by the time lsd came around, so I imagine that many use it out of familiarity. Both are awesome tools, I have used both each for quite some time. This might not be the most helpful answer but I am not sure if there are any significant features we have that lsd does not at this point. If you are curious, maybe try it out for a while and see what you think. 👍 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As PThorpe said, I think it varies between people. For me personally, one of the biggest reasons can be summed as this: However, this is probably better suited to a discussion rather than the issue tracker. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'm wondering, is this benchmark in some gigantic folder? lsd gets about 14ms in my pictures folder. Maybe it got improved since this post idk |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I've just done several benchmarks on my Mac, and the performance is similar enough that it can be considered totally irrelevant. On the first run, eza won: $ hyperfine "eza -l --icons /etc" "lsd -lg /etc" -w 1000 -m 1000
Benchmark 1: eza -l --icons
Time (mean ± σ): 5.2 ms ± 0.2 ms [User: 3.4 ms, System: 14.8 ms]
Range (min … max): 4.7 ms … 7.3 ms 1000 runs
Benchmark 2: lsd -lg
Time (mean ± σ): 6.4 ms ± 0.4 ms [User: 2.0 ms, System: 3.1 ms]
Range (min … max): 5.9 ms … 9.0 ms 1000 runs
Summary
eza -l --icons ran
1.24 ± 0.09 times faster than lsd -lgAnd on the second, with the same command (but 500 iterations instead of 1,000), $ hyperfine "eza -l --icons /etc" "lsd -lg /etc" -w 500 -m 500 -N
Benchmark 1: eza -l --icons /etc
Time (mean ± σ): 5.5 ms ± 0.2 ms [User: 3.5 ms, System: 14.5 ms]
Range (min … max): 5.1 ms … 7.1 ms 557 runs
Benchmark 2: lsd -lg /etc
Time (mean ± σ): 3.9 ms ± 0.2 ms [User: 1.6 ms, System: 0.9 ms]
Range (min … max): 3.6 ms … 5.8 ms 766 runs
Summary
lsd -lg /etc ran
1.40 ± 0.09 times faster than eza -l --icons /etcAnd I compared $ hyperfine "eza --tree /etc" "lsd --tree /etc" -w 250 -m 250 -i
Benchmark 1: eza --tree /etc
Time (mean ± σ): 3.2 ms ± 0.6 ms [User: 2.3 ms, System: 1.6 ms]
Range (min … max): 2.8 ms … 12.1 ms 457 runs
Benchmark 2: lsd --tree /etc
Time (mean ± σ): 9.0 ms ± 0.3 ms [User: 1.7 ms, System: 7.0 ms]
Range (min … max): 8.6 ms … 10.6 ms 250 runs
Summary
eza --tree /etc ran
2.79 ± 0.57 times faster than lsd --tree /etc |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
someone just needs to clone |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Well you asked for it: Number of files listed: 140866 I am not running |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
My pet peeve: eza can sort file names case-sensitively, lsd can't. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I like to use the tree view to directories only. I can do this in eza but with lsd i cant as it does not allow to specify the depth of the tree when using the directory only option. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
lsd --tree took 6.28s it's your choice! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Did you run both with a warm cache? Or did you run lsd first, and then once the cache was warm, eza? For me, with a warm cache, those commands in my home directory take about the same time. (7 runs each, throwing away the first two and averaged, Edit: of course a couple months has passed, so lsd may have improved since then. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I remember observing non-linear runtime issues here, so as the size of the directory grows, the effect would be more pronounced. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Im finding lsd to be vastly faster on my system for things like |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
and |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The difference is even larger with This is run on |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
---
Benchmarking 'eza_tree' (10 runs after 1 warmup)...
Benchmark 1: eza --icons --tree ~/
Time (mean ± σ): 13.242 s ± 0.594 s [User: 20.136 s, System: 21.278 s]
Range (min … max): 12.799 s … 14.367 s 10 runs
Warning: Statistical outliers were detected. Consider re-running this benchmark on a quiet system without any interferences from other programs. It might help to use the '--warmup' or '--prepare' options.
Storing result for 'eza_tree': Median time = 12.9837392169s
---
Benchmarking 'lsd_tree' (10 runs after 1 warmup)...
Benchmark 1: lsd --tree ~/
Time (mean ± σ): 10.036 s ± 0.163 s [User: 3.986 s, System: 5.977 s]
Range (min … max): 9.873 s … 10.316 s 10 runs
Storing result for 'lsd_tree': Median time = 9.95973556274ssimilar results for me. without warmed up cache though lsd is CONSIDERABLY slower (30s+) meanwhile eza without cache warm up is about 18s. so I'd say it's a matter of preference here, if you want marginally better performance with a bit less --tree features - go with lsd. if your files often change though i'd go with eza. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Test: truncate -s 2097152 foo.binNow list it ls -lh foo.bin
lsd -lh foo.bin
eza -l foo.binYou'll get The "correct" result to me is the one that is expected from native tools. Side Note: Outside of shells, macOS uses base 10 and "K", "M" to display sizes (Finder, System Info, etc). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The problem is not the different default (base 2 for ls, SI for eza), the problem is the misleading wrong units used by lsd: standard SI units with base 2 calculations. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes, GNU and BSD tools like |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
No they don't, they use simple one letter prefixes, even with # OK, if confusing
▸ /usr/bin/ls -lh /usr/bin/{ls,lsd}
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 139K Apr 9 16:08 /usr/bin/ls
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 3.4M Aug 20 2024 /usr/bin/lsd
▸ /usr/bin/ls -lh --si /usr/bin/{ls,lsd}
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 143k Apr 9 16:08 /usr/bin/ls
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 3.6M Aug 20 2024 /usr/bin/lsd
# Wrong!
▸ /usr/bin/lsd -lh /usr/bin/{ls,lsd}
.rwxr-xr-x root root 139 KB Wed Apr 9 16:08:23 2025 /usr/bin/ls
.rwxr-xr-x root root 3.4 MB Tue Aug 20 20:30:54 2024 /usr/bin/lsd
# Would be okay:
▸ /usr/bin/lsd -lh /usr/bin/{ls,lsd}
.rwxr-xr-x root root 139 KiB Wed Apr 9 16:08:23 2025 /usr/bin/ls
.rwxr-xr-x root root 3.4 MiB Tue Aug 20 20:30:54 2024 /usr/bin/lsd
# And eza:
▸ /usr/bin/eza -lh /usr/bin/{ls,lsd}
Permissions Size User Date Modified Name
.rwxr-xr-x 142k root 9 Apr 16:08 /usr/bin/ls
.rwxr-xr-x 3.6M root 20 Aug 2024 /usr/bin/lsd
▸ /usr/bin/eza -lh --binary /usr/bin/{ls,lsd}
Permissions Size User Date Modified Name
.rwxr-xr-x 139Ki root 9 Apr 16:08 /usr/bin/ls
.rwxr-xr-x 3.4Mi root 20 Aug 2024 /usr/bin/lsdSo eza output is consistent with |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Struggling with choise between eza and lsd right now. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
...although that config file lacks of configs |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I've used the tool lsd for awhile, what advantages does this have for it?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions