Getting size with du of files only

How can I get the size of all files and all files in its subdirectories using the du command.

I am trying the following command to get the size of all files (and files in subdirectories)

find . -type f | du -a

But this prints out the folder sizes as well. How can I get a listing of sizes of all files and files in subdirectories? I also tried the exec flag but I am not sure how to pipe the output into another command after it executes the results of find into du.

The operating system is AIX 6.1 with ksh shell.

edited Dec 16 '18 at 4:16

Rui F Ribeiro

40.1k1479136

asked Oct 11 '11 at 19:12

Shardul Upadhyay

318135

add a comment |

How can I get the size of all files and all files in its subdirectories using the du command.

I am trying the following command to get the size of all files (and files in subdirectories)

find . -type f | du -a

The operating system is AIX 6.1 with ksh shell.

edited Dec 16 '18 at 4:16

Rui F Ribeiro

40.1k1479136

asked Oct 11 '11 at 19:12

Shardul Upadhyay

318135

add a comment |

How can I get the size of all files and all files in its subdirectories using the du command.

I am trying the following command to get the size of all files (and files in subdirectories)

find . -type f | du -a

The operating system is AIX 6.1 with ksh shell.

edited Dec 16 '18 at 4:16

Rui F Ribeiro

40.1k1479136

asked Oct 11 '11 at 19:12

Shardul Upadhyay

318135

How can I get the size of all files and all files in its subdirectories using the du command.

I am trying the following command to get the size of all files (and files in subdirectories)

find . -type f | du -a

The operating system is AIX 6.1 with ksh shell.

files find disk-usage aix ksh

edited Dec 16 '18 at 4:16

Rui F Ribeiro

40.1k1479136

asked Oct 11 '11 at 19:12

Shardul Upadhyay

318135

edited Dec 16 '18 at 4:16

Rui F Ribeiro

40.1k1479136

asked Oct 11 '11 at 19:12

Shardul Upadhyay

318135

edited Dec 16 '18 at 4:16

Rui F Ribeiro

40.1k1479136

edited Dec 16 '18 at 4:16

Rui F Ribeiro

40.1k1479136

edited Dec 16 '18 at 4:16

Rui F Ribeiro

40.1k1479136

asked Oct 11 '11 at 19:12

Shardul Upadhyay

318135

asked Oct 11 '11 at 19:12

Shardul Upadhyay

318135

asked Oct 11 '11 at 19:12

Shardul Upadhyay

318135

add a comment |

5 Answers
5

active

oldest

votes

I usually use the -exec utility. Like this:

find . -type f -exec du -a +

I tried it both on bash and ksh with GNU find. I never tried AIX, but I'm sure your version of find has some -exec syntax.

The following snippet sorts the list, largest first:

find . -type f -exec du -a + | sort -n -r | less

edited Apr 2 '13 at 22:57

Gilles

537k12810841602

answered Oct 11 '11 at 21:52

rahmu

10.4k1970112

3

I'd go with this answer if you don't have access to find -print0 or other GNU features. If available, replacing ; with + will result in fewer invocations of du and thus better performance.

– jw013
Oct 11 '11 at 22:02

Thanks, this works out great especially since du offers a flag for size in different units.

– Shardul Upadhyay
Oct 12 '11 at 12:59

I could not find information on the + option. Is that an option for du or for find ? And why does it result in less calls?

– Amelio Vazquez-Reina
Jul 19 '13 at 22:41

1

It's a standard option of find. It specifies to exec the command (in our case du) only once, with all the results of find given as successive arguments to the command.

– rahmu
Jul 20 '13 at 2:25

wtf, why isn't there a command like du -f --threshold=1G

– Alexander Mills
Dec 22 '18 at 3:41

|
show 1 more comment

If you have GNU utilities, try

find . -type f -print0 | du --files0-from=-

edited Oct 11 '11 at 20:04

answered Oct 11 '11 at 19:43

jw013

36.4k6100125

The command is failing saying print0 is not a valid command and that last minus was not a recognized flag. I don't think this approach will work because man du doesn't list a files or from flag.

– Shardul Upadhyay
Oct 11 '11 at 20:00

You should add your operating system as a tag to the question. I assumed you had GNU but forgot to mention that.

– jw013
Oct 11 '11 at 20:04

1

Have an upvote on me! Your particular solution works with du -ch to get a grand total of matching files: find . -name 'blah blah.*' -print0 | du --files0-from=- -ch

– Michael Goldshteyn
Jul 15 '18 at 14:05

add a comment |

I generally use:

find . -type f -print0 | xargs -r0 du -a

Xargs usually calls the command, even if there are no arguments passed; xargs du </dev/null will still be called, xargs -r du </dev/null will not call du. The -0 argument looks for null-terminated strings instead of newline terminated.

Then I usually add | awk 'sum+=$1 END print sum' on the end to get the total.

answered Oct 11 '11 at 20:08

Arcege

17.1k44257

2

The then I usually add is worth of gold :-)

– Radek
Oct 2 '12 at 0:56

add a comment |

Here's a version with long parameter names and human sorting.

find . -type f -exec du --human + | sort --human --reverse | head

I also saw no need for -a/--all to be passed to du.

answered Dec 7 '15 at 10:00

Tarrasch

1664

add a comment |

-2

specific files in current dir

du -ch files*

is shorter and works for me

du -sh .

for current dir and all files in sub

du (GNU coreutils) 8.30

answered Jan 25 at 17:44

shorty

1

(1) What do you mean by du -ch files*? Suppose the current directory contains ant, apple, banana, bat, cat, corn, date, and dog, where the animal names are subdirectories and the fruit / vegetable names are files — what command would you use to get just the files? Or is that not what you meant? (2) du -sh . will report only a grand total of everything in and under the current directory, and not the files themselves at all. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what the question asked for.

– G-Man
Jan 25 at 23:09

add a comment |

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);

);

draft saved

draft discarded

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f22432%2fgetting-size-with-du-of-files-only%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

5 Answers
5

active

oldest

votes

5 Answers
5

active

oldest

votes

I usually use the -exec utility. Like this:

find . -type f -exec du -a +

I tried it both on bash and ksh with GNU find. I never tried AIX, but I'm sure your version of find has some -exec syntax.

The following snippet sorts the list, largest first:

find . -type f -exec du -a + | sort -n -r | less

edited Apr 2 '13 at 22:57

Gilles

537k12810841602

answered Oct 11 '11 at 21:52

rahmu

10.4k1970112

3

I'd go with this answer if you don't have access to find -print0 or other GNU features. If available, replacing ; with + will result in fewer invocations of du and thus better performance.

– jw013
Oct 11 '11 at 22:02

Thanks, this works out great especially since du offers a flag for size in different units.

– Shardul Upadhyay
Oct 12 '11 at 12:59

I could not find information on the + option. Is that an option for du or for find ? And why does it result in less calls?

– Amelio Vazquez-Reina
Jul 19 '13 at 22:41

1

It's a standard option of find. It specifies to exec the command (in our case du) only once, with all the results of find given as successive arguments to the command.

– rahmu
Jul 20 '13 at 2:25

wtf, why isn't there a command like du -f --threshold=1G

– Alexander Mills
Dec 22 '18 at 3:41

|
show 1 more comment

I usually use the -exec utility. Like this:

find . -type f -exec du -a +

I tried it both on bash and ksh with GNU find. I never tried AIX, but I'm sure your version of find has some -exec syntax.

The following snippet sorts the list, largest first:

find . -type f -exec du -a + | sort -n -r | less

edited Apr 2 '13 at 22:57

Gilles

537k12810841602

answered Oct 11 '11 at 21:52

rahmu

10.4k1970112

3

I'd go with this answer if you don't have access to find -print0 or other GNU features. If available, replacing ; with + will result in fewer invocations of du and thus better performance.

– jw013
Oct 11 '11 at 22:02

Thanks, this works out great especially since du offers a flag for size in different units.

– Shardul Upadhyay
Oct 12 '11 at 12:59

I could not find information on the + option. Is that an option for du or for find ? And why does it result in less calls?

– Amelio Vazquez-Reina
Jul 19 '13 at 22:41

1

It's a standard option of find. It specifies to exec the command (in our case du) only once, with all the results of find given as successive arguments to the command.

– rahmu
Jul 20 '13 at 2:25

wtf, why isn't there a command like du -f --threshold=1G

– Alexander Mills
Dec 22 '18 at 3:41

|
show 1 more comment

I usually use the -exec utility. Like this:

find . -type f -exec du -a +

I tried it both on bash and ksh with GNU find. I never tried AIX, but I'm sure your version of find has some -exec syntax.

The following snippet sorts the list, largest first:

find . -type f -exec du -a + | sort -n -r | less

edited Apr 2 '13 at 22:57

Gilles

537k12810841602

answered Oct 11 '11 at 21:52

rahmu

10.4k1970112

I usually use the -exec utility. Like this:

find . -type f -exec du -a +

I tried it both on bash and ksh with GNU find. I never tried AIX, but I'm sure your version of find has some -exec syntax.

The following snippet sorts the list, largest first:

find . -type f -exec du -a + | sort -n -r | less

edited Apr 2 '13 at 22:57

Gilles

537k12810841602

answered Oct 11 '11 at 21:52

rahmu

10.4k1970112

edited Apr 2 '13 at 22:57

Gilles

537k12810841602

edited Apr 2 '13 at 22:57

Gilles

537k12810841602

edited Apr 2 '13 at 22:57

Gilles

537k12810841602

answered Oct 11 '11 at 21:52

rahmu

10.4k1970112

answered Oct 11 '11 at 21:52

rahmu

10.4k1970112

answered Oct 11 '11 at 21:52

rahmu

10.4k1970112

3

I'd go with this answer if you don't have access to find -print0 or other GNU features. If available, replacing ; with + will result in fewer invocations of du and thus better performance.

– jw013
Oct 11 '11 at 22:02

Thanks, this works out great especially since du offers a flag for size in different units.

– Shardul Upadhyay
Oct 12 '11 at 12:59

I could not find information on the + option. Is that an option for du or for find ? And why does it result in less calls?

– Amelio Vazquez-Reina
Jul 19 '13 at 22:41

1

It's a standard option of find. It specifies to exec the command (in our case du) only once, with all the results of find given as successive arguments to the command.

– rahmu
Jul 20 '13 at 2:25

wtf, why isn't there a command like du -f --threshold=1G

– Alexander Mills
Dec 22 '18 at 3:41

|
show 1 more comment

3

I'd go with this answer if you don't have access to find -print0 or other GNU features. If available, replacing ; with + will result in fewer invocations of du and thus better performance.

– jw013
Oct 11 '11 at 22:02

Thanks, this works out great especially since du offers a flag for size in different units.

– Shardul Upadhyay
Oct 12 '11 at 12:59

I could not find information on the + option. Is that an option for du or for find ? And why does it result in less calls?

– Amelio Vazquez-Reina
Jul 19 '13 at 22:41

1

It's a standard option of find. It specifies to exec the command (in our case du) only once, with all the results of find given as successive arguments to the command.

– rahmu
Jul 20 '13 at 2:25

wtf, why isn't there a command like du -f --threshold=1G

– Alexander Mills
Dec 22 '18 at 3:41

I'd go with this answer if you don't have access to find -print0 or other GNU features. If available, replacing ; with + will result in fewer invocations of du and thus better performance.

– jw013
Oct 11 '11 at 22:02

Thanks, this works out great especially since du offers a flag for size in different units.

– Shardul Upadhyay
Oct 12 '11 at 12:59

I could not find information on the + option. Is that an option for du or for find ? And why does it result in less calls?

– Amelio Vazquez-Reina
Jul 19 '13 at 22:41

It's a standard option of find. It specifies to exec the command (in our case du) only once, with all the results of find given as successive arguments to the command.

– rahmu
Jul 20 '13 at 2:25

wtf, why isn't there a command like du -f --threshold=1G

– Alexander Mills
Dec 22 '18 at 3:41

|
show 1 more comment

If you have GNU utilities, try

find . -type f -print0 | du --files0-from=-

edited Oct 11 '11 at 20:04

answered Oct 11 '11 at 19:43

jw013

36.4k6100125

The command is failing saying print0 is not a valid command and that last minus was not a recognized flag. I don't think this approach will work because man du doesn't list a files or from flag.

– Shardul Upadhyay
Oct 11 '11 at 20:00

You should add your operating system as a tag to the question. I assumed you had GNU but forgot to mention that.

– jw013
Oct 11 '11 at 20:04

1

Have an upvote on me! Your particular solution works with du -ch to get a grand total of matching files: find . -name 'blah blah.*' -print0 | du --files0-from=- -ch

– Michael Goldshteyn
Jul 15 '18 at 14:05

add a comment |

If you have GNU utilities, try

find . -type f -print0 | du --files0-from=-

edited Oct 11 '11 at 20:04

answered Oct 11 '11 at 19:43

jw013

36.4k6100125

The command is failing saying print0 is not a valid command and that last minus was not a recognized flag. I don't think this approach will work because man du doesn't list a files or from flag.

– Shardul Upadhyay
Oct 11 '11 at 20:00

You should add your operating system as a tag to the question. I assumed you had GNU but forgot to mention that.

– jw013
Oct 11 '11 at 20:04

1

Have an upvote on me! Your particular solution works with du -ch to get a grand total of matching files: find . -name 'blah blah.*' -print0 | du --files0-from=- -ch

– Michael Goldshteyn
Jul 15 '18 at 14:05

add a comment |

If you have GNU utilities, try

find . -type f -print0 | du --files0-from=-

edited Oct 11 '11 at 20:04

answered Oct 11 '11 at 19:43

jw013

36.4k6100125

If you have GNU utilities, try

find . -type f -print0 | du --files0-from=-

edited Oct 11 '11 at 20:04

answered Oct 11 '11 at 19:43

jw013

36.4k6100125

edited Oct 11 '11 at 20:04

answered Oct 11 '11 at 19:43

jw013

36.4k6100125

answered Oct 11 '11 at 19:43

jw013

36.4k6100125

answered Oct 11 '11 at 19:43

jw013

36.4k6100125

The command is failing saying print0 is not a valid command and that last minus was not a recognized flag. I don't think this approach will work because man du doesn't list a files or from flag.

– Shardul Upadhyay
Oct 11 '11 at 20:00

You should add your operating system as a tag to the question. I assumed you had GNU but forgot to mention that.

– jw013
Oct 11 '11 at 20:04

1

Have an upvote on me! Your particular solution works with du -ch to get a grand total of matching files: find . -name 'blah blah.*' -print0 | du --files0-from=- -ch

– Michael Goldshteyn
Jul 15 '18 at 14:05

add a comment |

The command is failing saying print0 is not a valid command and that last minus was not a recognized flag. I don't think this approach will work because man du doesn't list a files or from flag.

– Shardul Upadhyay
Oct 11 '11 at 20:00

You should add your operating system as a tag to the question. I assumed you had GNU but forgot to mention that.

– jw013
Oct 11 '11 at 20:04

1

Have an upvote on me! Your particular solution works with du -ch to get a grand total of matching files: find . -name 'blah blah.*' -print0 | du --files0-from=- -ch

– Michael Goldshteyn
Jul 15 '18 at 14:05

The command is failing saying print0 is not a valid command and that last minus was not a recognized flag. I don't think this approach will work because man du doesn't list a files or from flag.

– Shardul Upadhyay
Oct 11 '11 at 20:00

You should add your operating system as a tag to the question. I assumed you had GNU but forgot to mention that.

– jw013
Oct 11 '11 at 20:04

Have an upvote on me! Your particular solution works with du -ch to get a grand total of matching files: find . -name 'blah blah.*' -print0 | du --files0-from=- -ch

– Michael Goldshteyn
Jul 15 '18 at 14:05

add a comment |

I generally use:

find . -type f -print0 | xargs -r0 du -a

Then I usually add | awk 'sum+=$1 END print sum' on the end to get the total.

answered Oct 11 '11 at 20:08

Arcege

17.1k44257

2

The then I usually add is worth of gold :-)

– Radek
Oct 2 '12 at 0:56

add a comment |

I generally use:

find . -type f -print0 | xargs -r0 du -a

Then I usually add | awk 'sum+=$1 END print sum' on the end to get the total.

answered Oct 11 '11 at 20:08

Arcege

17.1k44257

2

The then I usually add is worth of gold :-)

– Radek
Oct 2 '12 at 0:56

add a comment |

I generally use:

find . -type f -print0 | xargs -r0 du -a

Then I usually add | awk 'sum+=$1 END print sum' on the end to get the total.

answered Oct 11 '11 at 20:08

Arcege

17.1k44257

I generally use:

find . -type f -print0 | xargs -r0 du -a

Then I usually add | awk 'sum+=$1 END print sum' on the end to get the total.

answered Oct 11 '11 at 20:08

Arcege

17.1k44257

answered Oct 11 '11 at 20:08

Arcege

17.1k44257

answered Oct 11 '11 at 20:08

Arcege

17.1k44257

answered Oct 11 '11 at 20:08

Arcege

17.1k44257

2

The then I usually add is worth of gold :-)

– Radek
Oct 2 '12 at 0:56

add a comment |

2

The then I usually add is worth of gold :-)

– Radek
Oct 2 '12 at 0:56

The then I usually add is worth of gold :-)

– Radek
Oct 2 '12 at 0:56

add a comment |

Here's a version with long parameter names and human sorting.

find . -type f -exec du --human + | sort --human --reverse | head

I also saw no need for -a/--all to be passed to du.

answered Dec 7 '15 at 10:00

Tarrasch

1664

add a comment |

Here's a version with long parameter names and human sorting.

find . -type f -exec du --human + | sort --human --reverse | head

I also saw no need for -a/--all to be passed to du.

answered Dec 7 '15 at 10:00

Tarrasch

1664

add a comment |

Here's a version with long parameter names and human sorting.

find . -type f -exec du --human + | sort --human --reverse | head

I also saw no need for -a/--all to be passed to du.

answered Dec 7 '15 at 10:00

Tarrasch

1664

Here's a version with long parameter names and human sorting.

find . -type f -exec du --human + | sort --human --reverse | head

I also saw no need for -a/--all to be passed to du.

answered Dec 7 '15 at 10:00

Tarrasch

1664

answered Dec 7 '15 at 10:00

Tarrasch

1664

answered Dec 7 '15 at 10:00

Tarrasch

1664

answered Dec 7 '15 at 10:00

Tarrasch

1664

add a comment |

-2

specific files in current dir

du -ch files*

is shorter and works for me

du -sh .

for current dir and all files in sub

du (GNU coreutils) 8.30

answered Jan 25 at 17:44

shorty

1

(1) What do you mean by du -ch files*? Suppose the current directory contains ant, apple, banana, bat, cat, corn, date, and dog, where the animal names are subdirectories and the fruit / vegetable names are files — what command would you use to get just the files? Or is that not what you meant? (2) du -sh . will report only a grand total of everything in and under the current directory, and not the files themselves at all. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what the question asked for.

– G-Man
Jan 25 at 23:09

add a comment |

-2

specific files in current dir

du -ch files*

is shorter and works for me

du -sh .

for current dir and all files in sub

du (GNU coreutils) 8.30

answered Jan 25 at 17:44

shorty

1

(1) What do you mean by du -ch files*? Suppose the current directory contains ant, apple, banana, bat, cat, corn, date, and dog, where the animal names are subdirectories and the fruit / vegetable names are files — what command would you use to get just the files? Or is that not what you meant? (2) du -sh . will report only a grand total of everything in and under the current directory, and not the files themselves at all. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what the question asked for.

– G-Man
Jan 25 at 23:09

add a comment |

-2

specific files in current dir

du -ch files*

is shorter and works for me

du -sh .

for current dir and all files in sub

du (GNU coreutils) 8.30

answered Jan 25 at 17:44

shorty

specific files in current dir

du -ch files*

is shorter and works for me

du -sh .

for current dir and all files in sub

du (GNU coreutils) 8.30

answered Jan 25 at 17:44

shorty

answered Jan 25 at 17:44

shorty

answered Jan 25 at 17:44

shorty

answered Jan 25 at 17:44

shorty

1

(1) What do you mean by du -ch files*? Suppose the current directory contains ant, apple, banana, bat, cat, corn, date, and dog, where the animal names are subdirectories and the fruit / vegetable names are files — what command would you use to get just the files? Or is that not what you meant? (2) du -sh . will report only a grand total of everything in and under the current directory, and not the files themselves at all. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what the question asked for.

– G-Man
Jan 25 at 23:09

add a comment |

1

(1) What do you mean by du -ch files*? Suppose the current directory contains ant, apple, banana, bat, cat, corn, date, and dog, where the animal names are subdirectories and the fruit / vegetable names are files — what command would you use to get just the files? Or is that not what you meant? (2) du -sh . will report only a grand total of everything in and under the current directory, and not the files themselves at all. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what the question asked for.

– G-Man
Jan 25 at 23:09

(1) What do you mean by du -ch files*? Suppose the current directory contains ant, apple, banana, bat, cat, corn, date, and dog, where the animal names are subdirectories and the fruit / vegetable names are files — what command would you use to get just the files? Or is that not what you meant? (2) du -sh . will report only a grand total of everything in and under the current directory, and not the files themselves at all. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what the question asked for.

– G-Man
Jan 25 at 23:09

add a comment |

draft saved

draft discarded

Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

draft saved

draft discarded

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

搜尋此網誌

mjhjmtu