Hi.
I found many scripts in the web of achieving this.
But I like to use this one
find /EDWH-DMT03 -xdev -size +10000 -exec ls -la {} \;|sort -n -k 5 > LARGE.rst
But the problem is, why it still list out files with 89 bytes as the output? Is there anything wrong with the command?
My UNIX environment is as below
HP-UX system1 B.11.31 U ia64 0189138652 unlimited-user license
Any help would be much appreciated.
Thank you.
Please show us the ls -la output for the file that has size 89 bytes. That find command shouldn't show you anything for files smaller than 512000 bytes. Unless you have a huge directory, it shouldn't make any difference, but please also try:
find /EDWH-DMT03 -xdev -size +10000 -exec ls -lad {} +|sort -n -k 5,5 > LARGE.rst
Thanks Don.
This is some of the output:
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 89 Apr 24 21:40 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20160424_61486.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 89 Apr 25 23:20 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20160425_61701.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 89 Apr 26 05:20 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20160426_61746.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 127 Nov 11 2014 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20141022_59770.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 174 Nov 11 2014 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20141021_59453.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 200 Nov 11 2014 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20141022_59764.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 221 Dec 5 2013 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20131205_02067.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 21832 Sep 15 2015 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20150915_16466.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 21833 Dec 15 2014 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20141215_68321.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 21834 Jun 17 2014 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20140617_41284.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 21834 Nov 11 2014 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20141001_57072.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 21836 Nov 25 2013 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20131125_99511.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 21860 Nov 27 2013 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20131127_00075.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 21861 Jul 28 2014 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20140728_47098.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 37255 Jul 6 2015 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20150706_01203.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 37258 May 29 2015 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20150529_94299.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 37260 Nov 11 2014 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20141021_59484.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 37264 Nov 6 15:00 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20151106_27007.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 37272 Sep 15 2015 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20150915_16414.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 37279 Jan 31 2014 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20140131_16810.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 37280 Dec 8 10:00 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20151208_33705.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 37280 Feb 26 2014 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20140226_23747.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 37281 Apr 12 2014 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20140412_31888.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 38657 Feb 15 15:20 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20160215_47855.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 38657 Mar 3 14:40 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20160303_51340.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 38658 Apr 4 2014 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20140404_30777.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 38658 Nov 23 11:40 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20151123_30547.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 38862 Apr 14 2014 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20140414_32198.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 38862 Jun 1 2015 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20150601_94805.cdr.ext
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftphsbb ftpuser 39020 Sep 12 2014 CASS_voice_NON_IMS_20140912_54032.cdr.ext
All of them are under /EDWH-DMT03/stgdata/HSBB/USAGE/ directory.
Anyway, your modified script give neat output indeed.
Thank you very much.
Hi aimy,
You're welcome.
Is the output you showed us from your original script, or from my suggested modification? I'm not clear as to whether or not the "neat output" my suggestion provided solved your problem???
Sorry to make you confused Sir.
Of course the neat output of your script solved my problem.
The one that I showed you is from the original script output. But what is wrong with the script I posted if you can detect it?
And by the way, doesn't that +10000 indicate the byte size? How could it be equivalent to the 512000 bytes?
Thank you.
It isn't a problem; I just wanted to be sure your problem had been fixed. I'm glad my suggestion worked.
The size reported by the lstat() system call for a directory varies depending on filesystem type. Some file systems report the number of files contained in the directory; some report the space needed to hold the i-node numbers and the names of the files contained in the directory; some report the accumulated sizes of the files contained in the directory (which I would guess is what happened in your case); and some report other values. Furthermore, when a file is unlinked from a directory, the size of the directory might or might not shrink. By adding the -d option to ls , the output reported just the directories larger than the size you specified instead of those directories AND the contents of those directories.
Sorry. The 512000 was a typo. It should have been 5120000. If you look at the find man page's description of the size primary, you'll see that the size specified is the number of 512 byte blocks; not the number of bytes. If you want files with sizes larger than 10,000 bytes (instead of larger than 10,000 512-byte blocks), use -size 10000c .
The change from -exec ls -lad {} \; (which causes find to invoke ls for each file found meeting your size limits) to -exec ls -lad + (which causes find to invoke ls with as many arguments as it can without overflowing ARG_MAX limits) just makes your script run a little faster (or, if there are a lot of files meeting your size limits, a lot faster).
Thanks a lot again Mr. Don.
So meaning if I want get a list of all files that exceed 500MB, this should be the command right:
$ find 104857600 -xdev -size +104857600c -exec ls -lad {} +|sort -n -k 5,5 > LARGE.rst
But why did I got this error returned:
find: cannot stat 104857600
Thank you.
The 1st operand to find is the name of a file (usually of type directory) to be tested or operated on by the primaries specified by later operands. The diagnostic you got is saying that find was not able to find the file named 104857600 that you specified as a starting point for a list of files to be processed.
One would think that if you were looking for files larger than 500Mb, you would either want -size +524288000c (500*10241024 bytes) or -size +1024000 (500*10241024/512 512-byte blocks). Using -size +104857600c would be looking for files larger than 100Mb instead of 500Mb.