Re: A handy utility (at least for me)

In <20060828164218.GA34151@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rick C. Petty <rick-freebsd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 06:18:58PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Rick C. Petty wrote:
> I find that the following command works just fine for me:
> find /usr/ports -type d -name work -prune -print -delete
The following is probably the most efficient solution.
It doesn't run into all subdirectories (and works with
an arbitrary numebr of subdirectories).
cd /usr/ports; echo */*/work | xargs rm -rf
You might as well just do:
rm -rf /usr/ports/*/*/work
because using xargs doesn't gain you anything in this case. How does your
example work with an arbitrary number of subdirectories?

If echo is a shell built in, then it works just fine, and the xargs
insures that you don't try passing to many arguments to rm.

Your example does't work if the number of work directories exceeds the
maximum number of arguments

That limit is in the kernel exec. If echo is a shell built in, then
the kernel exec doesn't gets involved until after xargs has had a
chance to chop the list of arguments up. If you used "rm" instead of
echo, that isn't the case.

Also I don't see how your example is any more efficient than find-- you're
just making the shell do the work instead of find.

Find will check *every file* in *every directory* to see if it's named
"work" or not. The shell version won't make that test on the first two
levels of directories; it just expands them.

In either case, it's
just a sequence of opendir()/readdir(). In fact your example would start
secondary processes to do the directory removal; find has this built in
and thus doesn't have the overhead of process forking.

And now you get into the question of what "efficient" means. Either
process is going to spend most of it's time waiting on the disk. With
the find, nothing else is happening while that's going on. With
multiple processes, there's a possibility that one can be working
while the other is waiting on the disk, so it might take more CPU time
while taking less wall clock time. Which is more efficient? [NB: This
is grossly oversimplified, but you get the general idea.]

Perhaps if on an
arbitrary directory tree, find may not be as efficient, but the only
directories deeper than depth of two (in my example) are work directories,
and they would be pruned.

You forgot the files directories that some ports have. Your version
will look through those for "work", the glob won't.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@xxxxxxxxx> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: For Command - can I do IN clause: (cmd 1 & cmd 2) ???
    ... /O:N') do echo %%* ... "Pegasus (MVP)" wrote: ... I need to see all the files in the subdirectories BEFORE I see the ... yielding me the highest level directory last ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Looping through Directories...
    ... then change the echo lines to ... replacing Newdir1 & Newdir2 with the directory names you want to use. ... > subdirectories are created in each of the apple types. ... > I know I want to sort of combine a DIR command with a FOR LOOP ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.cmdprompt.admin)
  • /usr/local removed... but entries for it exist yet!
    ... I do not want to open another wrong PR about NetBSD. ... echo x - ./dot.cshrc.patch ... X # directory with all of the subdirectories listed for the keyword _subdir. ... Xecho x - ./dot.cshrc.patch ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc)
  • filtype() Problems
    ... I wrote a simple script utilizing readdirto read the contents of a directory, then of all subdirectories and thier contents and echo the filenames to the page. ...
    (comp.lang.php)
  • Re: find and searching for specific expression in files
    ... subdirectories. ... xargs is usefull too. ... i would it as forking for each file will make processing really slow. ... xargs can cut input data into given chunks with -n option, so grep will be called for say 100 files at once. ...
    (freebsd-questions)