 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 02/03/2012 06:42, Darren New nous fit lire :
> On 2/28/2012 19:30, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> I did try exactly this actually, it printed "." and nothing else
>
> Hmmm. There's a flag you can pass to find to turn off the optimization
> of counting the number of links on "." and not recursing afterwards, or
> something. I wonder if that would have helped. I wasn't aware find tried
> loading things into memory, but maybe you wound up with a hard link to
> itself in the directory (other than ".") or some such. I suspect file
> system corruption.
>
>
I'm more thinking about it: by default, it (ls) will try to sort the
filenames in alphabetical order... find the switch to disable that!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/2/2012 10:42 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>
> I'm more thinking about it: by default, it (ls) will try to sort the
> filenames in alphabetical order... find the switch to disable that!
>
This is an excellent point, although I did at least check that find
wasn't trying to sort things when I ran it (it wasn't). Totally forgot
that ls would do that though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/1/2012 9:42 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 2/28/2012 19:30, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> I did try exactly this actually, it printed "." and nothing else
>
> I suspect file system corruption.
This has been a worry of mine too, although everything else seems to be
fine, and deleting the files did eventually work. I also am starting to
wonder if there's something with the particular Linux distro I was
using, since the more I think about it the more I feel that it ran a
little *too* well on the big machine, I'll poke around a bit more when I
get back from vacation and see if i can figure out anything else.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/2/2012 10:42, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> I'm more thinking about it: by default, it (ls) will try to sort the
> filenames in alphabetical order... find the switch to disable that!
That's why I sugested just "find . -print". "find" doesn't try to sort the
output. (glob sorts the output also.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
