Linux was compared with GNU du in eight runs per tool on GitHub Actions. Windows measurements add a 1M-file HyperDU-only result and a 10K-file diagnostic. These are records of the displayed benchmark commit, not fresh measurements of the published release or current HEAD. Windows adds a comparison with dua-cli and reference timings for tokei, which does a different job.
HyperDU vs GNU du
GitHub Actions / LinuxAMD EPYC 9V74 80-Core Processor · 4 vCPU · 15.6 GiB RAM · ext4
Ubuntu 24.04 · 1M files per tree · 256 B per file · median of 8 runs per tool · allocated size
Wide directory treeElapsed time · shorter is faster
HyperDU / 1M files
Local Windows / standaloneAMD Ryzen 9 3900X · 12 cores / 24 threads · 128 GiB RAM · NTFS / NVMe
Windows 11 · 1M files · 256 B per file · logical size · median of 8 HyperDU-only runs
GNU du timed out after 600 seconds during warmup, before any measured run. The 1M-file comparison is incomplete; wide and deep 1M-file workloads were not run.
HyperDU vs GNU du (MSYS)
Local Windows / 10K-file diagnosticAMD Ryzen 9 3900X · 12 cores / 24 threads · 128 GiB RAM · NTFS / NVMe
Windows 11 · 10K files per tree · 256 B per file · logical size · median of 2 runs per tool
Wide directory treeElapsed time · shorter is faster
All directory totals matched between tools. These ratios apply only to this 10K-file, two-run diagnostic, not to 1M-file workloads or the Linux comparison.
HyperDU vs dua-cli
Local Windows / 2026-09-30 / d4ebdb8AMD Ryzen 9 3900X · 12 cores / 24 threads · 128 GiB RAM · NTFS / NVMe
Windows 11 · logical size · median of 12 runs per tool · three 100K-file synthetic trees + two real trees
Byte totals from both tools equalled the independent walk on every dataset. HyperDU was faster on all five, but the gap depends on tree shape (1.08-2.77x excluding flat). The deep tree has almost no width to parallelize, so the two are close. The flat figure includes dua printing one row per direct entry (100,001 rows) and is not a representative ratio. Unrelated jobs held the CPU at roughly 60-90% busy during measurement, so absolute times are inflated.
HyperDU / tokei (reference)
Local Windows / 2026-09-30 / different workloadAMD Ryzen 9 3900X · 12 cores / 24 threads · 128 GiB RAM · NTFS / NVMe
Windows 11 · two real trees · median of 12 runs per tool · HyperDU sums sizes, tokei counts lines
tokei reads file contents and counts lines, while HyperDU only totals sizes. These are different jobs, so no speed ratio is shown; the times are reference only. tokei parsed 80,897 files in the Cargo registry and 16,576 in node_modules (recognized source extensions only). The synthetic fixtures have no extensions, so tokei parses nothing there and was not timed.