On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 11:02:47PM +0800, f5b wrote:
> At??2013-03-04??20:13:46,"Paul??de??Weerd"??<we...@weirdnet.nl>??wrote:
> >Exactly!????So??what??is??the??point??in??summing??up??the??sizes??of??a??bunch??of
> >files???????I??am??197??cm??tall,??my??house??number??is??34,??my??zipcode??is??1318,
> >I??have??2??brothers??and??1??sister??..??sum??is??1552.????Great,??but??now??what???
> >
> >This??total??value??does??not??correspond??to??anything??tangible??(as??far??as??I
> >can??see,??at??least??..??hence??me??asking).????It's??no??indication??of??how??much
> >storage??space??is??needed??to??store??these??files,??it's??no??indication??of
> >how??large??an??archive??would??be??containing??these??files,??it's??of??no??real
> >use??(again,??afaics)??except??for??knowing??what??the??filesize??would??be??of
> >cat??*??>??/tmp/newfile??(which??would??be??pointless??in??most??cases??I??guess).
> >
> >Why??do??people??care???
> >
>
>
> Maybe because we come from Windows system.
> In Windows, sum files' size by "Byte" is a simple quick way to check if
> thousands of files are
>
> modified/sync/same, although not accurate.
You must be kidding, right?
This test both gives false positives and false negatives.
-Otto
>
> In OpenBSD, Command ls or du can't do this directly.
>
> For example
> # pwd
> /home/test
> # ls -l
> total 8
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2 Mar 3 23:29 a.txt
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 3 Mar 3 23:29 b.txt
> # du -sh
> 6.0K .
> # du -s
> 12 .
> # echo a >>b.txt
> # ls -l
> total 8
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 2 Mar 3 23:29 a.txt
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 5 Mar 4 21:45 b.txt
> # du -sh
> 6.0K .
> # du -s
> 12 .
>
> You see? ls and du never know this directory's files(withtout subdirectory)
> have been changed, but file sizes are changed from 5 to 7, so "sum" knows and
> Tedu's shell script is my friend.
>
> Tedu's filesizes script.
> ~/bin> cat filesizes
> #!/bin/sh
> ls -l $@ | awk '{sum += $5} END { print sum }'
>
> Would function like this script merge to ls' options or other command to
> OpenBSD base?
