On Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:35 AM, Kevin Krieser wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> On 1/25/2010 8:49 AM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>>> Anas Alnaffar wrote:
I tried to run this command
find -name "*.access*" -mtime +2 -exec rm {} \;
>
On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 1/25/2010 8:49 AM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>> Anas Alnaffar wrote:
>>> I tried to run this command
>>>
>>> find -name "*.access*" -mtime +2 -exec rm {} \;
>>>
>>
>> Should have been: find ./ -name \*.access\* -mtime +2 -exec rm -
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 1/25/2010 8:49 AM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>> Anas Alnaffar wrote:
>>> I tried to run this command
>>>
>>> find -name "*.access*" -mtime +2 -exec rm {} \;
>>>
>> Should have been: find ./ -name \*.access\* -mtime +2 -exec rm -f {} \;
>
> No difference. If the p
On 1/25/2010 8:49 AM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
> Anas Alnaffar wrote:
>> I tried to run this command
>>
>> find -name "*.access*" -mtime +2 -exec rm {} \;
>>
>
> Should have been: find ./ -name \*.access\* -mtime +2 -exec rm -f {} \;
No difference. If the path is omitted, current versio
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 1/26/2010 11:42 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, January 25, 2010 13:40, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> .
>>>
>>> I'd say it is more likely that the command that resulted in an error
>>> wasn't exactly what was posted or there is a filesyste
What was your original find command?
Robert Nichols wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On 1/26/2010 11:42 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>>> On Mon, January 25, 2010 13:40, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> .
I'd say it is more likely that the command that resulted in an error
wasn't exactly what was post
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 1/26/2010 11:42 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> On Mon, January 25, 2010 13:40, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> .
>>> I'd say it is more likely that the command that resulted in an error
>>> wasn't exactly what was posted or there is a filesystem problem.
>>>
>> I do not consider a fil
On 1/26/2010 11:42 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Mon, January 25, 2010 13:40, Les Mikesell wrote:
> .
>>
>> I'd say it is more likely that the command that resulted in an error
>> wasn't exactly what was posted or there is a filesystem problem.
>>
>
> I do not consider a file system issue, as in
On Mon, January 25, 2010 13:40, Les Mikesell wrote:
.
>
> I'd say it is more likely that the command that resulted in an error
> wasn't exactly what was posted or there is a filesystem problem.
>
I do not consider a file system issue, as in error or corruption,
highly probable in this case. It m
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf
Of James B. Byrne
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 10:06 AM
To: Robert Nichols
Cc: centos@centos.org
Subject: Re: [CentOS] The directory that I am trying to clean up is huge
On Mon, January 25
James B. Byrne wrote:
> On Mon, January 25, 2010 10:31, Robert Nichols wrote:
> \
>> Now if the "{}" string appears more than once then the command line
>> contains that path more than once, but it is essentially impossible
>> to exceed the kernel's MAX_ARG_PAGES this way.
>>
>> The only issue with
On Mon, January 25, 2010 10:31, Robert Nichols wrote:
\
>
> Now if the "{}" string appears more than once then the command line
> contains that path more than once, but it is essentially impossible
> to exceed the kernel's MAX_ARG_PAGES this way.
>
> The only issue with using "-exec command {} ;" f
Anas Alnaffar wrote:
> I tried to run this command
>
> find -name "*.access*" -mtime +2 -exec rm {} \;
>
Should have been: find ./ -name \*.access\* -mtime +2 -exec rm -f {} \;
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/l
> fred smith wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 03:14:54AM -0800, John Doe wrote:
>>> From: Anas Alnaffar
I tried to run this command
find -name "*.access*" -mtime +2 -exec rm {} \;
and I have same error message
>>> How many "*.access*" are there...?
>>>
>> if there are so many that
fred smith wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 03:14:54AM -0800, John Doe wrote:
>> From: Anas Alnaffar
>>> I tried to run this command
>>> find -name "*.access*" -mtime +2 -exec rm {} \;
>>> and I have same error message
>> How many "*.access*" are there...?
>>
>> JD
>
> if there are so many that y
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 03:14:54AM -0800, John Doe wrote:
> From: Anas Alnaffar
> > I tried to run this command
> > find -name "*.access*" -mtime +2 -exec rm {} \;
> > and I have same error message
>
> How many "*.access*" are there...?
>
> JD
if there are so many that you're finding the previo
From: Anas Alnaffar
> I tried to run this command
> find -name "*.access*" -mtime +2 -exec rm {} \;
> and I have same error message
How many "*.access*" are there...?
JD
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman
In article ,
Kevin Krieser wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Marcelo M. Garcia wrote:
> > the find ... -exec variation will invoke a new "rm" command for
> > every single file it finds, which will simply take more time to run.
> > beyond
Robert Heller wrote:
> At Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:43:40 + CentOS mailing list
> wrote:
>
>> Just curious. What is the difference between the command above and "find
>> -exec rm -f {} \;" ?
>
> The command "find -exec rm -f {} \;" collects ALL of the names
> "find " as a single command line,
At Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:43:40 + CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> Robert Heller wrote:
> > At Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:23:58 +0300 CentOS mailing list
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Content-Language: en-us
> >>
> >>
> >> The directory that I am trying to clean up is huge . every time get this
> >> error msg
>
> find on CentOS 5.4 supports
>
> find -exec {} +;
>
> which avoids the negative effect of spawning new subprocesses when using
> "-exec {} \;"
>
> find on CentOS 4.8 does not support that.
I'll have to give that a try sometime. A person gets used to a subset of a
command, and doesn't nec
Am 23.01.2010 14:12, schrieb Kevin Krieser:
>
> On Jan 23, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Marcelo M. Garcia wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Heller wrote:
>
> -bash: /usr/bin/find: Argument list too long
'man xargs'
find -print | xargs rm
On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Anas Alnaffar wrote:
> I tried to run this command
>
> find -name "*.access*" -mtime +2 -exec rm {} \;
>
>
> and I have same error message
>
>
>
> Anas
>
There must have been more to it, since the command above is invalid. you need
to specify where to star
On Jan 23, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Marcelo M. Garcia wrote:
>
>> Robert Heller wrote:
-bash: /usr/bin/find: Argument list too long
>>>
>>> 'man xargs'
>>>
>>> find -print | xargs rm
>>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Just curious. What is the difference betw
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] The directory that I am trying to clean up is huge
Anas Alnaffar wrote:
> The directory that I am trying to clean up is huge . every time get this
> error msg
>
>
>
> -bash: /usr/bin/find: Argument list too long
>
http://www.google.com/search?as_epq=Argument+list+too+long
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Marcelo M. Garcia wrote:
> Robert Heller wrote:
> >>
> >> -bash: /usr/bin/find: Argument list too long
> >
> > 'man xargs'
> >
> > find -print | xargs rm
> >
> Hi
>
> Just curious. What is the difference between the command above and "find
> -exec rm -f {} \;" ?
the find
Robert Heller wrote:
> At Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:23:58 +0300 CentOS mailing list
> wrote:
>
>> Content-Language: en-us
>>
>>
>> The directory that I am trying to clean up is huge . every time get this
>> error msg
>>
>>
>>
>> -bash: /usr/bin/find: Argument list too long
>
> 'man xargs'
>
> fin
At Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:23:58 +0300 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> Content-Language: en-us
>
>
> The directory that I am trying to clean up is huge . every time get this
> error msg
>
>
>
> -bash: /usr/bin/find: Argument list too long
'man xargs'
find -print | xargs rm
>
>
>
>
Anas Alnaffar wrote:
> The directory that I am trying to clean up is huge … every time get this
> error msg
>
>
>
> -bash: /usr/bin/find: Argument list too long
>
>
>
>
>
> Please advise
>
>
>
> *Anas *
Hi
Could you put the complete command? Please provide more details.
Regards
m
30 matches
Mail list logo
