Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:01:57 -0500 (EST) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Additional option to ls -l for large files Message-ID: <200001130301.WAA76792@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <v0421010ab4a2b121c34e@[128.113.24.47]> References: <200001120201.SAA26378@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <v04210106b4a296b28cc2@[128.113.24.47]> <200001122151.QAA75948@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <v0421010ab4a2b121c34e@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:45:51 -0500, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001130301.WAA76792>