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 error or
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 file system issue,
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 posted or there is a
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com 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
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 versions of find
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 path is omitted,
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 -f {} \;
No
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 {} \;
Should have been: find
In article c31ed75a-0115-44fc-940d-c2956c46e...@sbcglobal.net,
Kevin Krieser k_krie...@sbcglobal.net 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
From: Anas Alnaffar a.alnaf...@tijaritelecom.com
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
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 03:14:54AM -0800, John Doe wrote:
From: Anas Alnaffar a.alnaf...@tijaritelecom.com
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
fred smith wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 03:14:54AM -0800, John Doe wrote:
From: Anas Alnaffar a.alnaf...@tijaritelecom.com
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
fred smith wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 03:14:54AM -0800, John Doe wrote:
From: Anas Alnaffar a.alnaf...@tijaritelecom.com
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
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
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 {} ; for a huge
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 using -exec
-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,
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
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
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
mg.
At Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:23:58 +0300 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
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 mumble -print | xargs rm
Robert Heller wrote:
At Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:23:58 +0300 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
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
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Marcelo M. Garcia wrote:
Robert Heller wrote:
-bash: /usr/bin/find: Argument list too long
'man xargs'
find mumble -print | xargs rm
Hi
Just curious. What is the difference between the command above and find
numble -exec rm -f {} \; ?
the find ... -exec
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
I tried to run this command
find -name *.access* -mtime +2 -exec rm {} \;
and I have same error message
Anas
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf
Of Marcelo M. Garcia
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 3:34 PM
To: CentOS
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 start the find.
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 mumble -print | xargs rm
Hi
Just curious. What is the
find on CentOS 5.4 supports
find path -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
At Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:43:40 + CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
wrote:
Robert Heller wrote:
At Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:23:58 +0300 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
wrote:
Content-Language: en-us
The directory that I am trying to clean up is huge . every time get this
Robert Heller wrote:
At Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:43:40 + CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
wrote:
Just curious. What is the difference between the command above and find
numble -exec rm -f {} \; ?
The command find mumble -exec rm -f {} \; collects ALL of the names
find numble as a
29 matches
Mail list logo
