[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ls command
From: |
Richard Dawe |
Subject: |
Re: ls command |
Date: |
Mon, 07 Jun 2004 21:03:58 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031031 |
Hello.
Rich wrote:
I have come accross what seems to be a bug with the ls command. It only
happens in directories over a few thousand entries.
For example, the directory I am testing has roughly 7,000 files. We
tried using:
ls *_*
This produces a failure, [Too Many Arguments].
There are limits in how long the command-line can be. 7000 files is a
fair number of files, so you are hitting those limits.
These all work fine:
ls
ls -altr
ls -1
I tried other commands like find, tail, and grep. All work fine.
find . -name "*_*" -exec ls -l {} \;
tail *_*
grep "DATA ERROR" *_*
BTW, the *_* produces ~4,300 files out of 7,000.
Not sure if others have seen this type of failure.
Yes, I've seen it quite a few times.
You may find this command quicker than "find -exec":
find . -name "*_*" -print0 | xargs --null ls -l
This also copes with spaces in the filenames by using nul as the separator.
Hope that helps, bye, Rich =]
--
Richard Dawe [ http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~phekda/richdawe/ ]
"You can't evaluate a man by logic alone."
-- McCoy, "I, Mudd", Star Trek
- ls command, Rich, 2004/06/07
- Message not available
- Re: ls command,
Richard Dawe <=