Does option “-h†for “ls†display size in MB or MiB and is it consistent over Unix-based systems? [duplicate]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
meaning of -h in ls command
1 answer
The usual ls command can display the size of files with the option -h and I am having a little doubt about it being display in MB or MIB.
For example :
$ ls -lha
drwxr-xr-x 2 user group 4.0K Apr 2 21:49 .
drwxr-xr-x 5 user group 4.0K Apr 2 21:49 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 user group 129M Apr 2 21:49 2018-04-02T21:49:08.981976.hdf5
So, this leaves me with 2 questions :
- Does
ls -lhadisplayed the size in MB or MiB? - Is it consistent across Unix-based operating systems and their own versions over time?
N.B.: Not only commercial Unix-based operating systems should be considered for this question.
ls size
asked Apr 2 at 20:15
Paradox
1267
marked as duplicate by Christopher, Thomas Dickey, Isaac, muru, Hauke Laging Apr 3 at 5:12
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
meaning of -h in ls command
1 answer
The usual ls command can display the size of files with the option -h and I am having a little doubt about it being display in MB or MIB.
For example :
$ ls -lha
drwxr-xr-x 2 user group 4.0K Apr 2 21:49 .
drwxr-xr-x 5 user group 4.0K Apr 2 21:49 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 user group 129M Apr 2 21:49 2018-04-02T21:49:08.981976.hdf5
So, this leaves me with 2 questions :
- Does
ls -lhadisplayed the size in MB or MiB? - Is it consistent across Unix-based operating systems and their own versions over time?
N.B.: Not only commercial Unix-based operating systems should be considered for this question.
ls size
asked Apr 2 at 20:15
Paradox
1267
marked as duplicate by Christopher, Thomas Dickey, Isaac, muru, Hauke Laging Apr 3 at 5:12
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
1
I am not asking about the meaning but a subtle difference (which stay "blurry" in these answers's posts) in one option of this command, not to mention whether if this option display is consistent across OSs.
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:41
1
None of the Q&As pointed to by don_crissti actually answers this question, which is not what the option does, but whether the units are consistent across all implementations and what they are.
– JdeBP
Apr 3 at 6:21
2
@JdeBP the question of what the-hflag does in GNUls, which actually has it, has been adequately answered by the dupe. I don't know how theselsyou mention should be "addressed", we can't give a list of alllsimplementations, that would be off topic. Paradox, again, please edit your question and clarify what you're asking. The-hoption is not standard so yes, it can behave differently or be absent or do something completely different if the authors of an implementation choose it.
– terdon♦
Apr 5 at 8:18
1
Addressing the otherlsimplementations that exist apart from the GNU one is off-topic? I strongly dispute that. This is Unix and Linux Stack Exchange, not GNU Stack Exchange.
– JdeBP
Apr 5 at 19:12
1
@JdeBP of course non-GNU is 100% on topic! What is off topic is asking or providing a long list that attempts to cover all current and past implementations oflsin the *nix world. If Paradox would only edit the question to make it ask something that is specific and answerable about the portability of-h, then it would absolutely be on topic. But asking for the existence and behavior of the-hflag on everylsin existence is just too broad for this site.
– terdon♦
Apr 6 at 10:24
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
meaning of -h in ls command
1 answer
The usual ls command can display the size of files with the option -h and I am having a little doubt about it being display in MB or MIB.
For example :
$ ls -lha
drwxr-xr-x 2 user group 4.0K Apr 2 21:49 .
drwxr-xr-x 5 user group 4.0K Apr 2 21:49 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 user group 129M Apr 2 21:49 2018-04-02T21:49:08.981976.hdf5
So, this leaves me with 2 questions :
- Does
ls -lhadisplayed the size in MB or MiB? - Is it consistent across Unix-based operating systems and their own versions over time?
N.B.: Not only commercial Unix-based operating systems should be considered for this question.
ls size
asked Apr 2 at 20:15
Paradox
1267
This question already has an answer here:
meaning of -h in ls command
1 answer
The usual ls command can display the size of files with the option -h and I am having a little doubt about it being display in MB or MIB.
For example :
$ ls -lha
drwxr-xr-x 2 user group 4.0K Apr 2 21:49 .
drwxr-xr-x 5 user group 4.0K Apr 2 21:49 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 user group 129M Apr 2 21:49 2018-04-02T21:49:08.981976.hdf5
So, this leaves me with 2 questions :
- Does
ls -lhadisplayed the size in MB or MiB? - Is it consistent across Unix-based operating systems and their own versions over time?
N.B.: Not only commercial Unix-based operating systems should be considered for this question.
This question already has an answer here:
meaning of -h in ls command
1 answer
ls size
asked Apr 2 at 20:15
Paradox
1267
edited Apr 3 at 13:25
asked Apr 2 at 20:15
Paradox
1267
asked Apr 2 at 20:15
Paradox
1267
asked Apr 2 at 20:15
Paradox
1267
1267
marked as duplicate by Christopher, Thomas Dickey, Isaac, muru, Hauke Laging Apr 3 at 5:12
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Christopher, Thomas Dickey, Isaac, muru, Hauke Laging Apr 3 at 5:12
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
1
I am not asking about the meaning but a subtle difference (which stay "blurry" in these answers's posts) in one option of this command, not to mention whether if this option display is consistent across OSs.
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:41
1
None of the Q&As pointed to by don_crissti actually answers this question, which is not what the option does, but whether the units are consistent across all implementations and what they are.
– JdeBP
Apr 3 at 6:21
2
@JdeBP the question of what the-hflag does in GNUls, which actually has it, has been adequately answered by the dupe. I don't know how theselsyou mention should be "addressed", we can't give a list of alllsimplementations, that would be off topic. Paradox, again, please edit your question and clarify what you're asking. The-hoption is not standard so yes, it can behave differently or be absent or do something completely different if the authors of an implementation choose it.
– terdon♦
Apr 5 at 8:18
1
Addressing the otherlsimplementations that exist apart from the GNU one is off-topic? I strongly dispute that. This is Unix and Linux Stack Exchange, not GNU Stack Exchange.
– JdeBP
Apr 5 at 19:12
1
@JdeBP of course non-GNU is 100% on topic! What is off topic is asking or providing a long list that attempts to cover all current and past implementations oflsin the *nix world. If Paradox would only edit the question to make it ask something that is specific and answerable about the portability of-h, then it would absolutely be on topic. But asking for the existence and behavior of the-hflag on everylsin existence is just too broad for this site.
– terdon♦
Apr 6 at 10:24
 |Â
show 2 more comments
1
I am not asking about the meaning but a subtle difference (which stay "blurry" in these answers's posts) in one option of this command, not to mention whether if this option display is consistent across OSs.
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:41
1
None of the Q&As pointed to by don_crissti actually answers this question, which is not what the option does, but whether the units are consistent across all implementations and what they are.
– JdeBP
Apr 3 at 6:21
2
@JdeBP the question of what the-hflag does in GNUls, which actually has it, has been adequately answered by the dupe. I don't know how theselsyou mention should be "addressed", we can't give a list of alllsimplementations, that would be off topic. Paradox, again, please edit your question and clarify what you're asking. The-hoption is not standard so yes, it can behave differently or be absent or do something completely different if the authors of an implementation choose it.
– terdon♦
Apr 5 at 8:18
1
Addressing the otherlsimplementations that exist apart from the GNU one is off-topic? I strongly dispute that. This is Unix and Linux Stack Exchange, not GNU Stack Exchange.
– JdeBP
Apr 5 at 19:12
1
@JdeBP of course non-GNU is 100% on topic! What is off topic is asking or providing a long list that attempts to cover all current and past implementations oflsin the *nix world. If Paradox would only edit the question to make it ask something that is specific and answerable about the portability of-h, then it would absolutely be on topic. But asking for the existence and behavior of the-hflag on everylsin existence is just too broad for this site.
– terdon♦
Apr 6 at 10:24
1
1
I am not asking about the meaning but a subtle difference (which stay "blurry" in these answers's posts) in one option of this command, not to mention whether if this option display is consistent across OSs.
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:41
I am not asking about the meaning but a subtle difference (which stay "blurry" in these answers's posts) in one option of this command, not to mention whether if this option display is consistent across OSs.
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:41
1
1
None of the Q&As pointed to by don_crissti actually answers this question, which is not what the option does, but whether the units are consistent across all implementations and what they are.
– JdeBP
Apr 3 at 6:21
None of the Q&As pointed to by don_crissti actually answers this question, which is not what the option does, but whether the units are consistent across all implementations and what they are.
– JdeBP
Apr 3 at 6:21
2
2
@JdeBP the question of what the
-h flag does in GNU ls, which actually has it, has been adequately answered by the dupe. I don't know how these ls you mention should be "addressed", we can't give a list of all ls implementations, that would be off topic. Paradox, again, please edit your question and clarify what you're asking. The -h option is not standard so yes, it can behave differently or be absent or do something completely different if the authors of an implementation choose it.– terdon♦
Apr 5 at 8:18
@JdeBP the question of what the
-h flag does in GNU ls, which actually has it, has been adequately answered by the dupe. I don't know how these ls you mention should be "addressed", we can't give a list of all ls implementations, that would be off topic. Paradox, again, please edit your question and clarify what you're asking. The -h option is not standard so yes, it can behave differently or be absent or do something completely different if the authors of an implementation choose it.– terdon♦
Apr 5 at 8:18
1
1
Addressing the other
ls implementations that exist apart from the GNU one is off-topic? I strongly dispute that. This is Unix and Linux Stack Exchange, not GNU Stack Exchange.– JdeBP
Apr 5 at 19:12
Addressing the other
ls implementations that exist apart from the GNU one is off-topic? I strongly dispute that. This is Unix and Linux Stack Exchange, not GNU Stack Exchange.– JdeBP
Apr 5 at 19:12
1
1
@JdeBP of course non-GNU is 100% on topic! What is off topic is asking or providing a long list that attempts to cover all current and past implementations of
ls in the *nix world. If Paradox would only edit the question to make it ask something that is specific and answerable about the portability of -h, then it would absolutely be on topic. But asking for the existence and behavior of the -h flag on every ls in existence is just too broad for this site.– terdon♦
Apr 6 at 10:24
@JdeBP of course non-GNU is 100% on topic! What is off topic is asking or providing a long list that attempts to cover all current and past implementations of
ls in the *nix world. If Paradox would only edit the question to make it ask something that is specific and answerable about the portability of -h, then it would absolutely be on topic. But asking for the existence and behavior of the -h flag on every ls in existence is just too broad for this site.– terdon♦
Apr 6 at 10:24
 |Â
show 2 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
From the ls manpage:
-h, --human-readable
with -l and -s, print sizes like 1K 234M 2G etc.
--si likewise, but use powers of 1000 not 1024
So if you just use -h you will get MiB (^1024). If you add --si to the options, it will use MB (^1000). Verified on ubuntu, debian, and redhat. I don't have access to any commercial UNIX operating systems at the moment, but out of the box they tend not to include a -h option.
answered Apr 2 at 20:26
Ben McMahon
235
"but out of the box they tend not to include a -h option" From my experience, it is exactly the opposite (Fedora, Manjaro, Debian, Ubuntu and Scientific Linux) ; maybe you meant something else?
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:43
None of those are commercial Unices. Although M. McMahon could at least have looked at the BSDs.
– JdeBP
Apr 2 at 20:51
@JdeBP This option was available on the version of RHEL 6/7 I had been using in the past. (BTW Scientific Linux is based on it). But, still, I do not see the point : are "commercial Unices" universally lacking this option?
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:57
Solaris has it, not AIX or HPUX. I recall answering this, but don't see it readily.
– Thomas Dickey
Apr 2 at 21:26
1
@ThomasDickey - unix.stackexchange.com/a/302681/22142
– don_crissti
Apr 2 at 21:32
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
From the ls manpage:
-h, --human-readable
with -l and -s, print sizes like 1K 234M 2G etc.
--si likewise, but use powers of 1000 not 1024
So if you just use -h you will get MiB (^1024). If you add --si to the options, it will use MB (^1000). Verified on ubuntu, debian, and redhat. I don't have access to any commercial UNIX operating systems at the moment, but out of the box they tend not to include a -h option.
answered Apr 2 at 20:26
Ben McMahon
235
"but out of the box they tend not to include a -h option" From my experience, it is exactly the opposite (Fedora, Manjaro, Debian, Ubuntu and Scientific Linux) ; maybe you meant something else?
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:43
None of those are commercial Unices. Although M. McMahon could at least have looked at the BSDs.
– JdeBP
Apr 2 at 20:51
@JdeBP This option was available on the version of RHEL 6/7 I had been using in the past. (BTW Scientific Linux is based on it). But, still, I do not see the point : are "commercial Unices" universally lacking this option?
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:57
Solaris has it, not AIX or HPUX. I recall answering this, but don't see it readily.
– Thomas Dickey
Apr 2 at 21:26
1
@ThomasDickey - unix.stackexchange.com/a/302681/22142
– don_crissti
Apr 2 at 21:32
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
From the ls manpage:
-h, --human-readable
with -l and -s, print sizes like 1K 234M 2G etc.
--si likewise, but use powers of 1000 not 1024
So if you just use -h you will get MiB (^1024). If you add --si to the options, it will use MB (^1000). Verified on ubuntu, debian, and redhat. I don't have access to any commercial UNIX operating systems at the moment, but out of the box they tend not to include a -h option.
answered Apr 2 at 20:26
Ben McMahon
235
"but out of the box they tend not to include a -h option" From my experience, it is exactly the opposite (Fedora, Manjaro, Debian, Ubuntu and Scientific Linux) ; maybe you meant something else?
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:43
None of those are commercial Unices. Although M. McMahon could at least have looked at the BSDs.
– JdeBP
Apr 2 at 20:51
@JdeBP This option was available on the version of RHEL 6/7 I had been using in the past. (BTW Scientific Linux is based on it). But, still, I do not see the point : are "commercial Unices" universally lacking this option?
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:57
Solaris has it, not AIX or HPUX. I recall answering this, but don't see it readily.
– Thomas Dickey
Apr 2 at 21:26
1
@ThomasDickey - unix.stackexchange.com/a/302681/22142
– don_crissti
Apr 2 at 21:32
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
From the ls manpage:
-h, --human-readable
with -l and -s, print sizes like 1K 234M 2G etc.
--si likewise, but use powers of 1000 not 1024
So if you just use -h you will get MiB (^1024). If you add --si to the options, it will use MB (^1000). Verified on ubuntu, debian, and redhat. I don't have access to any commercial UNIX operating systems at the moment, but out of the box they tend not to include a -h option.
answered Apr 2 at 20:26
Ben McMahon
235
From the ls manpage:
-h, --human-readable
with -l and -s, print sizes like 1K 234M 2G etc.
--si likewise, but use powers of 1000 not 1024
So if you just use -h you will get MiB (^1024). If you add --si to the options, it will use MB (^1000). Verified on ubuntu, debian, and redhat. I don't have access to any commercial UNIX operating systems at the moment, but out of the box they tend not to include a -h option.
answered Apr 2 at 20:26
Ben McMahon
235
answered Apr 2 at 20:26
Ben McMahon
235
answered Apr 2 at 20:26
Ben McMahon
235
answered Apr 2 at 20:26
Ben McMahon
235
235
"but out of the box they tend not to include a -h option" From my experience, it is exactly the opposite (Fedora, Manjaro, Debian, Ubuntu and Scientific Linux) ; maybe you meant something else?
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:43
None of those are commercial Unices. Although M. McMahon could at least have looked at the BSDs.
– JdeBP
Apr 2 at 20:51
@JdeBP This option was available on the version of RHEL 6/7 I had been using in the past. (BTW Scientific Linux is based on it). But, still, I do not see the point : are "commercial Unices" universally lacking this option?
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:57
Solaris has it, not AIX or HPUX. I recall answering this, but don't see it readily.
– Thomas Dickey
Apr 2 at 21:26
1
@ThomasDickey - unix.stackexchange.com/a/302681/22142
– don_crissti
Apr 2 at 21:32
 |Â
show 1 more comment
"but out of the box they tend not to include a -h option" From my experience, it is exactly the opposite (Fedora, Manjaro, Debian, Ubuntu and Scientific Linux) ; maybe you meant something else?
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:43
None of those are commercial Unices. Although M. McMahon could at least have looked at the BSDs.
– JdeBP
Apr 2 at 20:51
@JdeBP This option was available on the version of RHEL 6/7 I had been using in the past. (BTW Scientific Linux is based on it). But, still, I do not see the point : are "commercial Unices" universally lacking this option?
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:57
Solaris has it, not AIX or HPUX. I recall answering this, but don't see it readily.
– Thomas Dickey
Apr 2 at 21:26
1
@ThomasDickey - unix.stackexchange.com/a/302681/22142
– don_crissti
Apr 2 at 21:32
"but out of the box they tend not to include a -h option" From my experience, it is exactly the opposite (Fedora, Manjaro, Debian, Ubuntu and Scientific Linux) ; maybe you meant something else?
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:43
"but out of the box they tend not to include a -h option" From my experience, it is exactly the opposite (Fedora, Manjaro, Debian, Ubuntu and Scientific Linux) ; maybe you meant something else?
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:43
None of those are commercial Unices. Although M. McMahon could at least have looked at the BSDs.
– JdeBP
Apr 2 at 20:51
None of those are commercial Unices. Although M. McMahon could at least have looked at the BSDs.
– JdeBP
Apr 2 at 20:51
@JdeBP This option was available on the version of RHEL 6/7 I had been using in the past. (BTW Scientific Linux is based on it). But, still, I do not see the point : are "commercial Unices" universally lacking this option?
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:57
@JdeBP This option was available on the version of RHEL 6/7 I had been using in the past. (BTW Scientific Linux is based on it). But, still, I do not see the point : are "commercial Unices" universally lacking this option?
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:57
Solaris has it, not AIX or HPUX. I recall answering this, but don't see it readily.
– Thomas Dickey
Apr 2 at 21:26
Solaris has it, not AIX or HPUX. I recall answering this, but don't see it readily.
– Thomas Dickey
Apr 2 at 21:26
1
1
@ThomasDickey - unix.stackexchange.com/a/302681/22142
– don_crissti
Apr 2 at 21:32
@ThomasDickey - unix.stackexchange.com/a/302681/22142
– don_crissti
Apr 2 at 21:32
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1
I am not asking about the meaning but a subtle difference (which stay "blurry" in these answers's posts) in one option of this command, not to mention whether if this option display is consistent across OSs.
– Paradox
Apr 2 at 20:41
1
None of the Q&As pointed to by don_crissti actually answers this question, which is not what the option does, but whether the units are consistent across all implementations and what they are.
– JdeBP
Apr 3 at 6:21
2
@JdeBP the question of what the
-hflag does in GNUls, which actually has it, has been adequately answered by the dupe. I don't know how theselsyou mention should be "addressed", we can't give a list of alllsimplementations, that would be off topic. Paradox, again, please edit your question and clarify what you're asking. The-hoption is not standard so yes, it can behave differently or be absent or do something completely different if the authors of an implementation choose it.– terdon♦
Apr 5 at 8:18
1
Addressing the other
lsimplementations that exist apart from the GNU one is off-topic? I strongly dispute that. This is Unix and Linux Stack Exchange, not GNU Stack Exchange.– JdeBP
Apr 5 at 19:12
1
@JdeBP of course non-GNU is 100% on topic! What is off topic is asking or providing a long list that attempts to cover all current and past implementations of
lsin the *nix world. If Paradox would only edit the question to make it ask something that is specific and answerable about the portability of-h, then it would absolutely be on topic. But asking for the existence and behavior of the-hflag on everylsin existence is just too broad for this site.– terdon♦
Apr 6 at 10:24