Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 06:45:22PM -0600, David Wright wrote: So, looking at the OP, is the order of sdc a temporary state of affairs, produced by adding partitions to sdc while sde is plugged in and blocking the sequence? (I've never seen one letter split.) Or is it quite normal when you reach fifteen partitions? I can understand that the devices seem to be assigned in blocks of sixteen, but I slightly surprised that they would be assigned in a broken sequence when they all present at boot time. Historically the device numbers were assigned statically: 8 block SCSI disk devices (0-15) 0 = /dev/sda First SCSI disk whole disk 16 = /dev/sdb Second SCSI disk whole disk 32 = /dev/sdc Third SCSI disk whole disk ... 240 = /dev/sdp Sixteenth SCSI disk whole disk There was a 15 partition limit. Now you can get more, but they're assigned dynamically, outside of the historic scheme. And surely sr0, sitting there in the middle, has a completely different major number from sdX. Because scsi cdroms are a completely different device type than scsi disks.
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
On Wed 09 Jan 2019 at 16:36:16 (-0500), Michael Stone wrote: > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:45:02PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > > But returning to lsblk, I can't figure out why the OP's lsblk -l > > appears in such an odd order. Does it differ from that given by > > lsblk with no arguments? > > > > I've checked the unsorted order of my /sys/dev/block, which is > > essentially random, as is the order of block devices in the output > > of mount, yet lsblk gives me a nice sorted lists: > > Without -x it's sorting in device major:minor order, which happens to > be alphabetical in your install purely by chance. So, looking at the OP, is the order of sdc a temporary state of affairs, produced by adding partitions to sdc while sde is plugged in and blocking the sequence? (I've never seen one letter split.) Or is it quite normal when you reach fifteen partitions? I can understand that the devices seem to be assigned in blocks of sixteen, but I slightly surprised that they would be assigned in a broken sequence when they all present at boot time. And surely sr0, sitting there in the middle, has a completely different major number from sdX. OP's report: However when I do > lsblk -l -o name,label I get > sdc14 good-fvwm > sdc15 tst_mysql > sde > sde1 debian-2-go > sr0 > sdc16 tst_mariadb > sdc17 dummy > sdc18 target Cheers, David.
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:45:02PM -0600, David Wright wrote: But returning to lsblk, I can't figure out why the OP's lsblk -l appears in such an odd order. Does it differ from that given by lsblk with no arguments? I've checked the unsorted order of my /sys/dev/block, which is essentially random, as is the order of block devices in the output of mount, yet lsblk gives me a nice sorted lists: Without -x it's sorting in device major:minor order, which happens to be alphabetical in your install purely by chance.
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
On Wed 09 Jan 2019 at 16:13:19 (+), mick crane wrote: > On 2019-01-09 14:14, David Wright wrote: > > On Wed 09 Jan 2019 at 13:54:45 (+), Curt wrote: > > > On 2019-01-09, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 09, 2019 03:01:42 AM Richard Hector wrote: > > > >> On 9/01/19 6:04 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote: > > > >> > lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script > > > >> > > > >> lsblk -ln -o name,label |sort |
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
On 2019-01-09, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 01/09/2019 08:14 AM, David Wright wrote: >> On Wed 09 Jan 2019 at 13:54:45 (+), Curt wrote: >>> On 2019-01-09, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, January 09, 2019 03:01:42 AM Richard Hector wrote: > On 9/01/19 6:04 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote: >> lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script > > lsblk -ln -o name,label |sort |
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
On 2019-01-09 14:14, David Wright wrote: On Wed 09 Jan 2019 at 13:54:45 (+), Curt wrote: On 2019-01-09, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, January 09, 2019 03:01:42 AM Richard Hector wrote: >> On 9/01/19 6:04 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote: >> > lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script >> >> lsblk -ln -o name,label |sort |
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
On 01/09/2019 08:14 AM, David Wright wrote: On Wed 09 Jan 2019 at 13:54:45 (+), Curt wrote: On 2019-01-09, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, January 09, 2019 03:01:42 AM Richard Hector wrote: On 9/01/19 6:04 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote: lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script lsblk -ln -o name,label |sort |
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
On Wed 09 Jan 2019 at 07:51:31 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: > Jude DaShiell composed on 2019-01-09 06:48 (UTC-0500): > > > Felix Miata wrote: > > >> Jude DaShiell composed on 2019-01-09 00:04 (UTC-0500): > > >>> lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script > > >> I tried exactly that on Buster multiple times, and always get the > >> following: > > >> root@gb250:~# NAME LABEL > >> bash: NAME: command not found > >> root@gb250:~# sda > >> bash: sda: command not found > >> root@gb250:~# sda10 k25p10deb10 > >> bash: sda10: command not found > >> root@gb250:~# sda11 k25p11deb10fat > >> bash: sda11: command not found > ... > >> root@gb250:~# sda8 k25p08s150 > >> bash: sda8: command not found > >> root@gb250:~# sda9 k25p09s151 > >> bash: sda9: command not found > >> root@gb250:~# sr0 > >> bash: sr0: command not found > >> root@gb250:~# exit > > > That can happen if bash doesn't find sort in its default binary > > directory. Could be pointing bash directly at sort will clear the > > command not found error out of the output. > > # cat /etc/debian_version > buster/sid > # which sort > /usr/bin/sort > # which script > /usr/bin/script > > Same result from: > > lsblk -l -o name,label | /usr/bin/sort | /usr/bin/script You've attempted to run a shell using the output of lsblk as a series of commands for it to execute. Cheers, David.
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
On Wed 09 Jan 2019 at 13:54:45 (+), Curt wrote: > On 2019-01-09, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 09, 2019 03:01:42 AM Richard Hector wrote: > >> On 9/01/19 6:04 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote: > >> > lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script > >> > >> lsblk -ln -o name,label |sort |
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
On 2019-01-09, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, January 09, 2019 03:01:42 AM Richard Hector wrote: >> On 9/01/19 6:04 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote: >> > lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script >> >> lsblk -ln -o name,label |sort |
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
On Wednesday, January 09, 2019 03:01:42 AM Richard Hector wrote: > On 9/01/19 6:04 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote: > > lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script > > lsblk -ln -o name,label |sort |
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
Jude DaShiell composed on 2019-01-09 06:48 (UTC-0500): > Felix Miata wrote: >> Jude DaShiell composed on 2019-01-09 00:04 (UTC-0500): >>> lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script >> I tried exactly that on Buster multiple times, and always get the following: >> root@gb250:~# NAME LABEL >> bash: NAME: command not found >> root@gb250:~# sda >> bash: sda: command not found >> root@gb250:~# sda10 k25p10deb10 >> bash: sda10: command not found >> root@gb250:~# sda11 k25p11deb10fat >> bash: sda11: command not found ... >> root@gb250:~# sda8 k25p08s150 >> bash: sda8: command not found >> root@gb250:~# sda9 k25p09s151 >> bash: sda9: command not found >> root@gb250:~# sr0 >> bash: sr0: command not found >> root@gb250:~# exit > That can happen if bash doesn't find sort in its default binary > directory. Could be pointing bash directly at sort will clear the > command not found error out of the output. # cat /etc/debian_version buster/sid # which sort /usr/bin/sort # which script /usr/bin/script Same result from: lsblk -l -o name,label | /usr/bin/sort | /usr/bin/script -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, Felix Miata wrote: > Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 01:47:24 > From: Felix Miata > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Taming the "lsblk" command > Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 06:47:41 + (UTC) > Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org > > Jude DaShiell composed on 2019-01-09 00:04 (UTC-0500): > > > lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script > > I tried exactly that on Buster multiple times, and always get the following: > > root@gb250:~# NAME LABEL > bash: NAME: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda > bash: sda: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda10 k25p10deb10 > bash: sda10: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda11 k25p11deb10fat > bash: sda11: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda12 k25p12Ubionic > bash: sda12: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda13 > bash: sda13: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda14 > bash: sda14: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda15 > bash: sda15: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda16 > bash: sda16: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda1 K25P01ESP > bash: sda1: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda2 k25p02swap > bash: sda2: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda3 k25p03res > bash: sda3: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda4 k25p04usrlcl > bash: sda4: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda5 k25p05home > bash: sda5: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda6 k25p06pub > bash: sda6: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda7 k25p07stw > bash: sda7: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda8 k25p08s150 > bash: sda8: command not found > root@gb250:~# sda9 k25p09s151 > bash: sda9: command not found > root@gb250:~# sr0 > bash: sr0: command not found > root@gb250:~# exit > That can happen if bash doesn't find sort in its default binary directory. Could be pointing bash directly at sort will clear the command not found error out of the output. --
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
On 9/01/19 6:04 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote: > lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script lsblk -ln -o name,label |sort |
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
On 1/8/19 10:47 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Jude DaShiell composed on 2019-01-09 00:04 (UTC-0500): lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script I tried exactly that on Buster multiple times, and always get the following: root@gb250:~# NAME LABEL bash: NAME: command not found root@gb250:~# sda bash: sda: command not found root@gb250:~# sda10 k25p10deb10 bash: sda10: command not found root@gb250:~# sda11 k25p11deb10fat bash: sda11: command not found root@gb250:~# sda12 k25p12Ubionic bash: sda12: command not found root@gb250:~# sda13 bash: sda13: command not found root@gb250:~# sda14 bash: sda14: command not found root@gb250:~# sda15 bash: sda15: command not found root@gb250:~# sda16 bash: sda16: command not found root@gb250:~# sda1 K25P01ESP bash: sda1: command not found root@gb250:~# sda2 k25p02swap bash: sda2: command not found root@gb250:~# sda3 k25p03res bash: sda3: command not found root@gb250:~# sda4 k25p04usrlcl bash: sda4: command not found root@gb250:~# sda5 k25p05home bash: sda5: command not found root@gb250:~# sda6 k25p06pub bash: sda6: command not found root@gb250:~# sda7 k25p07stw bash: sda7: command not found root@gb250:~# sda8 k25p08s150 bash: sda8: command not found root@gb250:~# sda9 k25p09s151 bash: sda9: command not found root@gb250:~# sr0 bash: sr0: command not found root@gb250:~# exit What was the content of the script you piped to? Its design would possibly explain this. Bob
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
Jude DaShiell composed on 2019-01-09 00:04 (UTC-0500): > lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script I tried exactly that on Buster multiple times, and always get the following: root@gb250:~# NAME LABEL bash: NAME: command not found root@gb250:~# sda bash: sda: command not found root@gb250:~# sda10 k25p10deb10 bash: sda10: command not found root@gb250:~# sda11 k25p11deb10fat bash: sda11: command not found root@gb250:~# sda12 k25p12Ubionic bash: sda12: command not found root@gb250:~# sda13 bash: sda13: command not found root@gb250:~# sda14 bash: sda14: command not found root@gb250:~# sda15 bash: sda15: command not found root@gb250:~# sda16 bash: sda16: command not found root@gb250:~# sda1 K25P01ESP bash: sda1: command not found root@gb250:~# sda2 k25p02swap bash: sda2: command not found root@gb250:~# sda3 k25p03res bash: sda3: command not found root@gb250:~# sda4 k25p04usrlcl bash: sda4: command not found root@gb250:~# sda5 k25p05home bash: sda5: command not found root@gb250:~# sda6 k25p06pub bash: sda6: command not found root@gb250:~# sda7 k25p07stw bash: sda7: command not found root@gb250:~# sda8 k25p08s150 bash: sda8: command not found root@gb250:~# sda9 k25p09s151 bash: sda9: command not found root@gb250:~# sr0 bash: sr0: command not found root@gb250:~# exit -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
DUH ;/ I was so focused on lsblk demonstrating with its graphical output that it COULD do what I wanted that I didn't think about an external sort, Thank you On 01/08/2019 11:04 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote: lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script On Tue, 8 Jan 2019, Richard Owlett wrote: Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 15:56:39 From: Richard Owlett To: debian-user Subject: Taming the "lsblk" command Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 20:57:05 + (UTC) Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org When I do >lsblk -o name,label I get a nice graphical result in _STRICT_ *ALPHA_NUMERIC* order. However when I do > lsblk -l -o name,label I get > sdc14 good-fvwm > sdc15 tst_mysql > sde > sde1 debian-2-go > sr0 > sdc16 tst_mariadb > sdc17 dummy > sdc18 target I wish to feed the output of "lsblk -l -o name,label" to a script which *DEPENDS* on input being in strict alpha-numeric order. How? TIA
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script On Tue, 8 Jan 2019, Richard Owlett wrote: > Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 15:56:39 > From: Richard Owlett > To: debian-user > Subject: Taming the "lsblk" command > Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 20:57:05 + (UTC) > Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org > > When I do > >lsblk -o name,label > I get a nice graphical result in _STRICT_ *ALPHA_NUMERIC* order. > > However when I do > lsblk -l -o name,label > I get > sdc14 good-fvwm > > sdc15 tst_mysql > > sde > > sde1 debian-2-go > > sr0 > > sdc16 tst_mariadb > > sdc17 dummy > > sdc18 target > > I wish to feed the output of "lsblk -l -o name,label" to a script which > *DEPENDS* on input being in strict alpha-numeric order. > > How? > TIA > > > > > --
Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
Hi. On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 02:56:39PM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > I wish to feed the output of "lsblk -l -o name,label" to a script which > *DEPENDS* on input being in strict alpha-numeric order. > > How? lsblk(8): lsblk -l -x name -o name,label Reco
Taming the "lsblk" command
When I do >lsblk -o name,label I get a nice graphical result in _STRICT_ *ALPHA_NUMERIC* order. However when I do > lsblk -l -o name,label I get > sdc14 good-fvwm > sdc15 tst_mysql > sde > sde1 debian-2-go > sr0 > sdc16 tst_mariadb > sdc17 dummy > sdc18 target I wish to feed the output of "lsblk -l -o name,label" to a script which *DEPENDS* on input being in strict alpha-numeric order. How? TIA
