topic Re: ls (is the result in bytes) in Operating System - HP-UX

ls (is the result in bytes)

Manuales — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:00:46 GMT

Hi,
i would like to know what is the size of the result after i run the command "ls -l"

Example:
$ ls -lrt prueba
-rw-rw-r-- 1 ftphr sapsys2 21 Feb 26 12:58 prueba

is "21" in bytes? if so, how can i run ls to get the value in Mb?

please let me know.
Thanks.
Dma.

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

James R. Ferguson — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:09:49 GMT

Hi:

Yes that value "21" has the units of characters. If you want to convert this to MB, you could do:

# ls -l | awk '{$5=sprintf("%6.2f",$5/1024/1024);print}'

Regards!

...JRF...

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

Dennis Handly — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:14:00 GMT

>is "21" in bytes?

Of course.
If you want it in Mb, you will have to write a script:
ll -rt prueba | awk '
NF >= 9 {
print $1, $2, $3, $4, $5/(1024*1024), $6, $7, $8, $9, $10, $11
next
}
{
print $0
}'

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

Manuales — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:55:56 GMT

and , what about Kb? how can i do that?
only 1 time: 1024?

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

James R. Ferguson — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:59:24 GMT

Hi (again) Manuales:

> and , what about Kb? how can i do that?

Yes:

# ls -l | awk '{$5=sprintf("%6.2f",$5/1024);print}'

Regards!

...JRF...

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

Manuales — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:34:59 GMT

Hi,
when i run:
ls -l | awk '{$5=sprintf("%6.2f",$5);print}'

the result is:
how can i gent 27.00 ?

total 32 0.00
-rw-rw-r-- 1 ftphr sapsys2 20.00 Mar 5 16:33 file1
-rw-rw-r-- 1 ftphr sapsys2 7.00 Mar 5 16:33 file2

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

James R. Ferguson — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:40:02 GMT

Hi (again):

Yes, we should skip the "total" line at the head of the list:

# ls -l | awk '/^total/ {print;next};{$5=sprintf("%6.2f",$5/1024);print}'

...converts to KB...

Regards!

...JRF...

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

Manuales — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:43:42 GMT

thanks ....
I have a question, if i run:
$ ls -lR | awk '{ sum += $5 } END { print sum }'

I got:
1.26335e+08

if i run:
$ ls -l | awk '/^total/ {print;next};{$5=sprintf("%6.2f",$5/1024);print}'

I got: total 155152 (KB)

is the same both cases? i mean, the result (numbers) are different .... how can i explain that?

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

OldSchool — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:52:12 GMT

example one had:

ls -lR | awk '{ sum += $5 } END { print sum }'

example two had:

ls -l | awk '/^total/ {print;next};{$5=sprintf("%6.2f",$5/1024);print}'

the "-R" in example one caused it to list the sizes of all the files in all the subdirectories, while the second didn't have that option.

also notice that the second example got rid of the "total" line, although this should not change the results.

Basically, you appear to have run the test with different sets of data!

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

OldSchool — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:00:16 GMT

Note also the following:

example one totals the sizes of all the files in the list, as in:

ls -lR | awk '{ sum += $5 } END { print sum }'
5912633

example two converts / displays each file to KB and displays that in the list:

ls -l | awk '/^total/ {print;next};{$5=sprintf("%6.2f",$5/1024);print}'
total 668
-rwxr----- 1 root root 0.00 Feb 23 12:26 abc
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.73 Dec 26 16:05 add.hosts
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.72 Dec 26 19:50 anaconda-ks.cfg
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4.00 Feb 25 10:26 c2
drwx------ 3 root root 4.00 Dec 26 19:57 Desktop
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 120.00 Dec 30 14:07 examples.tar
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0.04 Feb 27 15:18 fsm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0.10 Mar 2 15:54 fsm1
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0.13 Mar 2 16:11 fsm1.sh
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0.10 Mar 2 14:45 fsm2
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0.03 Feb 5 15:27 fsma1
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0.52 Feb 5 15:25 fsmawk
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 0.16 Feb 19 16:27 fsm.sh
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 46.62 Dec 26 19:50 install.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5.10 Dec 26 19:50 install.log.syslog
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4.00 Jan 9 10:34 sudo
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 423.72 Dec 26 15:28 tzdata-2008i-1.el2_1.noarch.rpm

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

Manuales — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:01:07 GMT

OldSchool, you are completely RIGHT ...

So, why it is different:

$ ls -l | awk '{ sum += $5 } END { print sum }'
RESULT: 7.94204e+07

$ ls -l | awk '/^total/ {print;next};{$5=sprintf("%6.2f",$5/1024);print}'
RESULT: total 155152

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

James R. Ferguson — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:10:17 GMT

Hi Manuales:

You asked:

So, why it is different:

$ ls -l | awk '{ sum += $5 } END { print sum }'
RESULT: 7.94204e+07

$ ls -l | awk '/^total/ {print;next};{$5=sprintf("%6.2f",$5/1024);print}'
RESULT: total 155152

...

In the first case we summed *characters*.

In the second case we simply passed through without converion the "total" line in the list head. The UNITS of this value are 512-character BLOCKS. Hence, 155152*512 = 79437824 =~ 7.94204e+07

Regards!

...JRF...

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

OldSchool — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:15:00 GMT

$ ls -l | awk '/^total/ {print;next};{$5=sprintf("%6.2f",$5/1024);print}'
RESULT: total 155152

I take it in the above you calculated a total by hand ('cause it sure didn't print it).

if so, lots of small files could be an issue i suppose, but w/o seeing the directory listing *before* it gets run thru the various awks, its hard to tell

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

Manuales — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:15:01 GMT

so, wha is the best option to get the space used?
i mean, i have to get a size report of different paths , my boss needs to know how much we are using in KB.

please let me know what option is the best to get above information.

thanks in advance.

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

James R. Ferguson — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:25:36 GMT

Hi Manuales:

> I mean, i have to get a size report of different paths , my boss needs to know how much we are using in KB.

The 'du' command is designed for this. You could summarize a path like this:

# du -ks /path

...and then to find the one-level deeper directory usage:

# ls -l /path | awk '/^d/ {print $NF}'|xargs du -ks

Regards!

...JRF...

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

Dennis Handly — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:29:01 GMT

>I have to get a size report of different paths, my boss needs to know how much we are using in KB.

You can use "du -kx".

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

Manuales — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:34:06 GMT

thaks both ..
now, how can i get the result in:
bytes
kbytes
mbytes ?

thanks.

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

James R. Ferguson — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:15:34 GMT

Hi (again) Manuales:

> now, how can i get the result in: bytes kbytes mbytes ?

Using 'du -k' means Kilobytes, so you need to appropriately convert by factors of 1024. You have quite enough examples to deduce how to do that :-)

Regards!

...JRF...

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

Manuales — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:21:23 GMT

tell me please !!!!

Re: ls (is the result in bytes)

Manuales — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:21:50 GMT

tell me please !!!! today i am very tired to think it .... pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee