On 2/28/2012 6:53 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 2/28/2012 12:04, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> I saw that too, and tried some pretty similar things.
>
> For the future, just try "find <dir>" and see what you get. That should
> print all the file names to the screen without having to actually load
> them into memory. (The shell and ls both try to sort the list of files
> before printing/using them, so that's part of your problem.)

I did try exactly this actually, it printed "." and nothing else before 
it used up 8GB of ram, 15.5GB of swap, and ground to a halt.  It worked 
on the 64GB ram computer though, which is basically how I managed to 
delete the files.  If I did "find ." in the superdirectory by the way, 
it successfully printed files as normal until it got the the problematic 
subdirectory, at which point it ground to a halt just as before.

Post a reply to this message