CentOS - Jan 2010 - The directory that I am trying to clean up is huge

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 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20100123/f6534851/attachment-0001.html>

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 at
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 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Please advise 
> 
>  
> 
> Anas 
> 
> 
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> 
>
-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
heller at deepsoft.com       -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/

http://www.google.com/search?as_epq=Argument+list+too+long

Kai

-- 
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com

I tried to run this command

find -name "*.access*" -mtime +2 -exec rm {} \;


and I have same error message



Anas 


-----Original Message-----
From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On
Behalf
Of Marcelo M. Garcia
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 3:34 PM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] The directory that I am trying to clean up is huge

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.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS at centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/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.

From: Anas Alnaffar <a.alnaffar at
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

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 {} \;

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 number
of
> files is one of performance.  If there are 100,000 matched files,
> the command will be invoked 100,000 times.
>
> --
> Bob Nichols         RNichols42 at comcast.net
>
Since the OP reported that the command he used:

  find -name "*.access*" -mtime +2 -exec rm {} \;

in fact failed, one may infer that more than performance is at issue.

The OP's problem lies not with the -exec construction but with the
unstated, but nonetheless present, './' of his find invocation.
Therefore he begins a recursive descent into that directory tree.
Since the depth of that tree is not given us, nor its contents, we
may only infer that there must be some number of files therein which
are causing the MAXPAGES limit to be exceeded before the recursion
returns.

I deduce that he could provide the -prune option or the -maxdepth= 0
option to avoid this recursion instead. I have not tried either but
I understand that one, or both, should work.



-- 
***          E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel          ***
James B. Byrne                mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3C3