From owner-freebsd-current Wed Jan 12 19: 2:32 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E3E114E8E for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:02:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA76792; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:01:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:01:57 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <200001130301.WAA76792@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Garance A Drosihn Cc: Garrett Wollman , "Rodney W. Grimes" , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Additional option to ls -l for large files In-Reply-To: References: <200001120201.SAA26378@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <200001122151.QAA75948@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG < said: > Yes, it may be "more pure" to use 1024 when comparing 'ls' listings > to block counts, but it is less confusing WITHIN a single 'ls -l' > listing if all the numbers are decimal, and not some combination of > base-10 and base-2. OK, let's try again. BLOCKSIZE=1000 ls -s Actually, this doesn't quite do what one would want, either -- the remainder is always rounded up, so a file which takes 1024 bytes even shows up as two 1000-blocks. However, it does do the right thing for large block sizes: wollman@khavrinen$ BLOCKSIZE=1M df / Filesystem 1M-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/wd0s1a 93 28 56 34% / wollman@khavrinen$ BLOCKSIZE=1000000 df / Filesystem 1000000-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/wd0s1a 97 30 59 34% / -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message