Is unlink any faster than rm?


3 Answers 3


Both are a wrapper to the same fundamental function which is an unlink() system call.

To weigh up the differences between the userland utilies.


  • More options.
  • More feedback.
  • Sanity checking.
  • A bit slower for single calls as a result of the above.
  • Can be called with multiple arguments at the same time.


  • Less sanity checking.
  • Unable to delete directories.
  • Unable to recurse.
  • Can only take one argument at a time.
  • Marginally leaner for single calls due to it's simplicity.
  • Slower when compared with giving rm(1) multiple arguments.

You could demonstrate the difference with:

$ touch $(seq 1 100)
$ unlink $(seq 1 100)
unlink: extra operand `2'

$ touch $(seq 1 100)
$ time rm $(seq 1 100)

real    0m0.048s
user    0m0.004s
sys     0m0.008s

$ touch $(seq 1 100)
$ time for i in $(seq 1 100); do rm $i; done

real    0m0.207s
user    0m0.044s
sys     0m0.112s

$ touch $(seq 1 100)
$ time for i in $(seq 1 100); do unlink $i; done

real    0m0.167s
user    0m0.048s
sys     0m0.120s

If however we're talking about an unadulterated call to the system unlink(2) function, which I now realise is probably not what you're accounting for.

You can perform a system unlink() on directories and files alike. But if the directory is a parent to other directories and files, then the link to that parent would be removed, but the children would be left dangling. Which is less than ideal.


Sorry, clarified the difference between unlink(1) and unlink(2). Semantics are still going to differ between platform.

  • 7
    It is technically possible leave orphaned directories/files on most if not all file systems. Fixing this generally means running a file system repair tool. On Unix/Linux these tools are known as 'fsck' and some specific variations for different file systems. If they do recover something they will normally leave it in a directory called 'lost+found' Commented Jul 10, 2009 at 10:01
  • 1
    Correct. rm will recurse from the bottom of the tree up. You can demonstrate how with: mkdir -p 1/2/3; touch 1/one 1/2/two 1/2/3/three; rm -ri 1. If you unlinked the parent directory then space consumed by the children should be lost until such time that fsck finds the discrepancy.
    – Dan Carley
    Commented Jul 10, 2009 at 10:03
  • 1
    What are you talking about? $ mkdir -p 1/2/3 $ unlink 1 unlink: cannot unlink `1': Is a directory Users causing "memory" leak requiring fsck? Unlikely!
    – Thomas
    Commented Jul 10, 2009 at 11:36
  • 1
    Both Linux and FreeBSD manpages explicitly state that it will fail when trying to run unlink() on a directory.
    – Thomas
    Commented Jul 10, 2009 at 11:44
  • 1
    Turns out Solaris with UFS does allow root to unlink non-empty directories. Not normal users though. Is there anything else that does? Not ZFS on Solaris, not anything on Linux or FreeBSD.
    – Thomas
    Commented Jul 10, 2009 at 13:17

At the POSIX spec level, what rm does is specified much more tightly than what unlink does.

The portability of the outcome seems likely to be better using rm, if your script has to run across OS's.


The slow part of removing is the filesystem code and disk stuff, not the userspace preparation of the unlink() system call.

I.e.: if the speed difference matters, then you shouldn't be storing the data on the file system.

unlink is just a rm "light". rm has more features but they do the same thing.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .