xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: your mail

To: Kostadin Karaivanov <larry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: your mail
From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:13:30 +0100
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <009b01c2527d$24507f00$1504a8c0@larry2>; from larry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 03:34:55PM +0300
References: <009b01c2527d$24507f00$1504a8c0@larry2>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
Hi,

On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 03:34:55PM +0300, Kostadin Karaivanov wrote:
 
> :-)) When the culprit is known (my ignorance) to find the solution is easy.
> The find/xargs combination seems most robust to me, althou I beleave that
> find CHEPELARE / -name *.htm -exec ls {} \; (or cat {} \;) will work
> also......

Ewww.  That will fork and exec a new copy of "ls" for every file it
finds.  For a 30000-file directory, that will be *expensive*.  xargs
is far more efficient.

Cheers,
 Stephen


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [no subject], Kostadin Karaivanov
    • Re: your mail, Stephen C. Tweedie <=