grep: memory exhausted

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












38















I was doing a very simple search:



grep -R Milledgeville ~/Documents


And after some time this error appeared:



grep: memory exhausted


How can I avoid this?



I have 10GB of RAM on my system and few applications running, so I am really surprised a simple grep runs out of memory. ~/Documents is about 100GB and contains all kinds of files.



grep -RI might not have this problem, but I want to search in binary files too.










share|improve this question




























    38















    I was doing a very simple search:



    grep -R Milledgeville ~/Documents


    And after some time this error appeared:



    grep: memory exhausted


    How can I avoid this?



    I have 10GB of RAM on my system and few applications running, so I am really surprised a simple grep runs out of memory. ~/Documents is about 100GB and contains all kinds of files.



    grep -RI might not have this problem, but I want to search in binary files too.










    share|improve this question


























      38












      38








      38


      4






      I was doing a very simple search:



      grep -R Milledgeville ~/Documents


      And after some time this error appeared:



      grep: memory exhausted


      How can I avoid this?



      I have 10GB of RAM on my system and few applications running, so I am really surprised a simple grep runs out of memory. ~/Documents is about 100GB and contains all kinds of files.



      grep -RI might not have this problem, but I want to search in binary files too.










      share|improve this question
















      I was doing a very simple search:



      grep -R Milledgeville ~/Documents


      And after some time this error appeared:



      grep: memory exhausted


      How can I avoid this?



      I have 10GB of RAM on my system and few applications running, so I am really surprised a simple grep runs out of memory. ~/Documents is about 100GB and contains all kinds of files.



      grep -RI might not have this problem, but I want to search in binary files too.







      grep memory performance






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Sep 10 '13 at 13:28







      Nicolas Raoul

















      asked Sep 10 '13 at 8:55









      Nicolas RaoulNicolas Raoul

      2,89383144




      2,89383144




















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          46














          Two potential problems:




          • grep -R (except for the modified GNU grep found on OS/X 10.8 and above) follows symlinks, so even if there's only 100GB of files in ~/Documents, there might still be a symlink to / for instance and you'll end up scanning the whole file system including files like /dev/zero. Use grep -r with newer GNU grep, or use the standard syntax:



            find ~/Documents -type f -exec grep Milledgeville /dev/null +


            (however note that the exit status won't reflect the fact that the pattern is matched or not).




          • grep finds the lines that match the pattern. For that, it has to load one line at a time in memory. GNU grep as opposed to many other grep implementations doesn't have a limit on the size of the lines it reads and supports search in binary files. So, if you've got a file with a very big line (that is, with two newline characters very far appart), bigger than the available memory, it will fail.



            That would typically happen with a sparse file. You can reproduce it with:



            truncate -s200G some-file
            grep foo some-file


            That one is difficult to work around. You could do it as (still with GNU grep):



            find ~/Documents -type f -exec sh -c 'for i do
            tr -s "" "n" < "$i" | grep --label="$i" -He "$0"
            done' Milledgeville +


            That converts sequences of NUL characters into one newline character prior to feeding the input to grep. That would cover for cases where the problem is due to sparse files.



            You could optimise it by doing it only for large files:



            find ~/Documents -type f ( -size -100M -exec 
            grep -He Milledgeville + -o -exec sh -c 'for i do
            tr -s "" "n" < "$i" | grep --label="$i" -He "$0"
            done' Milledgeville + )


            If the files are not sparse and you have a version of GNU grep prior to 2.6, you can use the --mmap option. The lines will be mmapped in memory as opposed to copied there, which means the system can always reclaim the memory by paging out the pages to the file. That option was removed in GNU grep 2.6







          share|improve this answer

























          • Actually, GNU grep doesn't care about reading in 1 line, it reads a large portion of the file into a single buffer. "Moreover, GNU grep AVOIDS BREAKING THE INPUT INTO LINES." source: lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2010-August/…

            – Godric Seer
            Sep 10 '13 at 12:32







          • 4





            @GodricSeer, it may still read a large portion of the file into a single buffer, but if it hasn't find the string in there and hasn't found a newline character either, my bet is that it keeps that single buffer in memory and reads the next buffer in, as it will have to display it if a match is found. So, the problem is still the same. In practice, a grep on a 200GB sparse file does fail with OOM.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Sep 10 '13 at 12:44







          • 1





            @GodricSeer, well no. If lines are all small, grep can discard the buffers it has processed so far. You can grep the output of yes indefinitely without using more than a few kilobytes of memory. The problem is the size of the lines.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Sep 10 '13 at 12:51







          • 3





            The GNU grep --null-data option may also be useful here. It forces the use of NUL instead of newline as an input line terminator.

            – iruvar
            Sep 16 '13 at 15:27






          • 1





            @1_CR, good point, though that also sets the output line terminator to NUL.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Sep 16 '13 at 15:35


















          5














          I usually do



          find ~/Documents | xargs grep -ne 'expression'


          I tried a bunch of methods, and found this to be the fastest. Note that this doesn't handle files with spaces the file name very well. If you know this is the case and have a GNU version of grep, you can use:



          find ~/Documents -print0 | xargs -0 grep -ne 'expression'


          If not you can use:



           find ~/Documents -exec grep -ne 'expression' "" ;


          Which will exec a grep for every file.






          share|improve this answer

























          • This will break on files with spaces.

            – Chris Down
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:04











          • Hmm, that is true.

            – Kotte
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:08











          • You can get around that with find -print0 | xargs -0 grep -ne 'expression'

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:09











          • @ChrisDown rather a non-protable solution than a broken-portable solution.

            – reto
            Sep 10 '13 at 16:41











          • @ChrisDown Most major unices have adopted find -print0 and xargs -0 by now: all three BSD, MINIX 3, Solaris 11, …

            – Gilles
            Sep 10 '13 at 21:21


















          4














          I can think of a few ways to get around this:




          • Instead of grepping all files at once, do one file at a time. Example:



            find /Documents -type f -exec grep -H Milledgeville "" ;


          • If you only need to know which files contain the words, do grep -l instead. Since grep will there stop searching after the first hit, it won't have to keep reading any huge files



          • If you do want the actual text as well, you could string two separate greps along:



            for file in $( grep -Rl Milledgeville /Documents ); do grep -H Milledgeville "$file"; done






          share|improve this answer

























          • The last example is not valid syntax -- you'd need to perform a command substitution (and you shouldn't do that, since grep outputs using a delimiter that is legal in file names). You also need to quote $file.

            – Chris Down
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:05












          • The latter example suffers with the issue of file names having newline or whitespace in them, (it will cause for to process the file as two arguments)

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:12











          • @DravSloan Your edit, while an improvement, still breaks on legal file names.

            – Chris Down
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:19







          • 1





            Yeah I left it in because it was part of her answer, I just tried to improve it so it would run (for the cases where there is no spaces/newlines etc in files).

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:34












          • Corrections of his -> her, my apologies Jenny :/

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:38


















          0














          I'm grepping a 6TB disk to search for lost data, and got the memory exhausted -error. This should work for other files too.



          The solution we came up with was to read the disk in chunks by using dd, and grepping the chunks. This is the code (big-grep.sh):



          #problem: grep gives "memory exhausted" error on 6TB disks
          #solution: read it on parts

          FILE=$1
          MATCH=$2

          #TODO this is still incomplete, need to get some way to read the size of the file and how many times to read it (so that modulo is 0)
          BYTES=732565323
          SIZE=6001175126016
          COUNT=8192
          #BYTES=$(expr 4 * 1024)
          #COUNT=$(expr $SIZE / $BYTES)

          #TODO didn't get the variable to work for some readon
          #for I in 1..$COUNT; do
          for I in 0..8192; do
          dd bs=$BYTES skip=$I count=1 if=$FILE status=none |buffer |grep -UF -a --context 6 "$MATCH"
          done





          share|improve this answer























          • Unless you read overlapping chunks, you would possibly miss matches on the chunk boundaries. The overlap must be at least as big as the string that you are expecting to match.

            – Kusalananda
            Jan 28 at 19:59










          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%2f90036%2fgrep-memory-exhausted%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes








          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          46














          Two potential problems:




          • grep -R (except for the modified GNU grep found on OS/X 10.8 and above) follows symlinks, so even if there's only 100GB of files in ~/Documents, there might still be a symlink to / for instance and you'll end up scanning the whole file system including files like /dev/zero. Use grep -r with newer GNU grep, or use the standard syntax:



            find ~/Documents -type f -exec grep Milledgeville /dev/null +


            (however note that the exit status won't reflect the fact that the pattern is matched or not).




          • grep finds the lines that match the pattern. For that, it has to load one line at a time in memory. GNU grep as opposed to many other grep implementations doesn't have a limit on the size of the lines it reads and supports search in binary files. So, if you've got a file with a very big line (that is, with two newline characters very far appart), bigger than the available memory, it will fail.



            That would typically happen with a sparse file. You can reproduce it with:



            truncate -s200G some-file
            grep foo some-file


            That one is difficult to work around. You could do it as (still with GNU grep):



            find ~/Documents -type f -exec sh -c 'for i do
            tr -s "" "n" < "$i" | grep --label="$i" -He "$0"
            done' Milledgeville +


            That converts sequences of NUL characters into one newline character prior to feeding the input to grep. That would cover for cases where the problem is due to sparse files.



            You could optimise it by doing it only for large files:



            find ~/Documents -type f ( -size -100M -exec 
            grep -He Milledgeville + -o -exec sh -c 'for i do
            tr -s "" "n" < "$i" | grep --label="$i" -He "$0"
            done' Milledgeville + )


            If the files are not sparse and you have a version of GNU grep prior to 2.6, you can use the --mmap option. The lines will be mmapped in memory as opposed to copied there, which means the system can always reclaim the memory by paging out the pages to the file. That option was removed in GNU grep 2.6







          share|improve this answer

























          • Actually, GNU grep doesn't care about reading in 1 line, it reads a large portion of the file into a single buffer. "Moreover, GNU grep AVOIDS BREAKING THE INPUT INTO LINES." source: lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2010-August/…

            – Godric Seer
            Sep 10 '13 at 12:32







          • 4





            @GodricSeer, it may still read a large portion of the file into a single buffer, but if it hasn't find the string in there and hasn't found a newline character either, my bet is that it keeps that single buffer in memory and reads the next buffer in, as it will have to display it if a match is found. So, the problem is still the same. In practice, a grep on a 200GB sparse file does fail with OOM.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Sep 10 '13 at 12:44







          • 1





            @GodricSeer, well no. If lines are all small, grep can discard the buffers it has processed so far. You can grep the output of yes indefinitely without using more than a few kilobytes of memory. The problem is the size of the lines.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Sep 10 '13 at 12:51







          • 3





            The GNU grep --null-data option may also be useful here. It forces the use of NUL instead of newline as an input line terminator.

            – iruvar
            Sep 16 '13 at 15:27






          • 1





            @1_CR, good point, though that also sets the output line terminator to NUL.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Sep 16 '13 at 15:35















          46














          Two potential problems:




          • grep -R (except for the modified GNU grep found on OS/X 10.8 and above) follows symlinks, so even if there's only 100GB of files in ~/Documents, there might still be a symlink to / for instance and you'll end up scanning the whole file system including files like /dev/zero. Use grep -r with newer GNU grep, or use the standard syntax:



            find ~/Documents -type f -exec grep Milledgeville /dev/null +


            (however note that the exit status won't reflect the fact that the pattern is matched or not).




          • grep finds the lines that match the pattern. For that, it has to load one line at a time in memory. GNU grep as opposed to many other grep implementations doesn't have a limit on the size of the lines it reads and supports search in binary files. So, if you've got a file with a very big line (that is, with two newline characters very far appart), bigger than the available memory, it will fail.



            That would typically happen with a sparse file. You can reproduce it with:



            truncate -s200G some-file
            grep foo some-file


            That one is difficult to work around. You could do it as (still with GNU grep):



            find ~/Documents -type f -exec sh -c 'for i do
            tr -s "" "n" < "$i" | grep --label="$i" -He "$0"
            done' Milledgeville +


            That converts sequences of NUL characters into one newline character prior to feeding the input to grep. That would cover for cases where the problem is due to sparse files.



            You could optimise it by doing it only for large files:



            find ~/Documents -type f ( -size -100M -exec 
            grep -He Milledgeville + -o -exec sh -c 'for i do
            tr -s "" "n" < "$i" | grep --label="$i" -He "$0"
            done' Milledgeville + )


            If the files are not sparse and you have a version of GNU grep prior to 2.6, you can use the --mmap option. The lines will be mmapped in memory as opposed to copied there, which means the system can always reclaim the memory by paging out the pages to the file. That option was removed in GNU grep 2.6







          share|improve this answer

























          • Actually, GNU grep doesn't care about reading in 1 line, it reads a large portion of the file into a single buffer. "Moreover, GNU grep AVOIDS BREAKING THE INPUT INTO LINES." source: lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2010-August/…

            – Godric Seer
            Sep 10 '13 at 12:32







          • 4





            @GodricSeer, it may still read a large portion of the file into a single buffer, but if it hasn't find the string in there and hasn't found a newline character either, my bet is that it keeps that single buffer in memory and reads the next buffer in, as it will have to display it if a match is found. So, the problem is still the same. In practice, a grep on a 200GB sparse file does fail with OOM.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Sep 10 '13 at 12:44







          • 1





            @GodricSeer, well no. If lines are all small, grep can discard the buffers it has processed so far. You can grep the output of yes indefinitely without using more than a few kilobytes of memory. The problem is the size of the lines.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Sep 10 '13 at 12:51







          • 3





            The GNU grep --null-data option may also be useful here. It forces the use of NUL instead of newline as an input line terminator.

            – iruvar
            Sep 16 '13 at 15:27






          • 1





            @1_CR, good point, though that also sets the output line terminator to NUL.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Sep 16 '13 at 15:35













          46












          46








          46







          Two potential problems:




          • grep -R (except for the modified GNU grep found on OS/X 10.8 and above) follows symlinks, so even if there's only 100GB of files in ~/Documents, there might still be a symlink to / for instance and you'll end up scanning the whole file system including files like /dev/zero. Use grep -r with newer GNU grep, or use the standard syntax:



            find ~/Documents -type f -exec grep Milledgeville /dev/null +


            (however note that the exit status won't reflect the fact that the pattern is matched or not).




          • grep finds the lines that match the pattern. For that, it has to load one line at a time in memory. GNU grep as opposed to many other grep implementations doesn't have a limit on the size of the lines it reads and supports search in binary files. So, if you've got a file with a very big line (that is, with two newline characters very far appart), bigger than the available memory, it will fail.



            That would typically happen with a sparse file. You can reproduce it with:



            truncate -s200G some-file
            grep foo some-file


            That one is difficult to work around. You could do it as (still with GNU grep):



            find ~/Documents -type f -exec sh -c 'for i do
            tr -s "" "n" < "$i" | grep --label="$i" -He "$0"
            done' Milledgeville +


            That converts sequences of NUL characters into one newline character prior to feeding the input to grep. That would cover for cases where the problem is due to sparse files.



            You could optimise it by doing it only for large files:



            find ~/Documents -type f ( -size -100M -exec 
            grep -He Milledgeville + -o -exec sh -c 'for i do
            tr -s "" "n" < "$i" | grep --label="$i" -He "$0"
            done' Milledgeville + )


            If the files are not sparse and you have a version of GNU grep prior to 2.6, you can use the --mmap option. The lines will be mmapped in memory as opposed to copied there, which means the system can always reclaim the memory by paging out the pages to the file. That option was removed in GNU grep 2.6







          share|improve this answer















          Two potential problems:




          • grep -R (except for the modified GNU grep found on OS/X 10.8 and above) follows symlinks, so even if there's only 100GB of files in ~/Documents, there might still be a symlink to / for instance and you'll end up scanning the whole file system including files like /dev/zero. Use grep -r with newer GNU grep, or use the standard syntax:



            find ~/Documents -type f -exec grep Milledgeville /dev/null +


            (however note that the exit status won't reflect the fact that the pattern is matched or not).




          • grep finds the lines that match the pattern. For that, it has to load one line at a time in memory. GNU grep as opposed to many other grep implementations doesn't have a limit on the size of the lines it reads and supports search in binary files. So, if you've got a file with a very big line (that is, with two newline characters very far appart), bigger than the available memory, it will fail.



            That would typically happen with a sparse file. You can reproduce it with:



            truncate -s200G some-file
            grep foo some-file


            That one is difficult to work around. You could do it as (still with GNU grep):



            find ~/Documents -type f -exec sh -c 'for i do
            tr -s "" "n" < "$i" | grep --label="$i" -He "$0"
            done' Milledgeville +


            That converts sequences of NUL characters into one newline character prior to feeding the input to grep. That would cover for cases where the problem is due to sparse files.



            You could optimise it by doing it only for large files:



            find ~/Documents -type f ( -size -100M -exec 
            grep -He Milledgeville + -o -exec sh -c 'for i do
            tr -s "" "n" < "$i" | grep --label="$i" -He "$0"
            done' Milledgeville + )


            If the files are not sparse and you have a version of GNU grep prior to 2.6, you can use the --mmap option. The lines will be mmapped in memory as opposed to copied there, which means the system can always reclaim the memory by paging out the pages to the file. That option was removed in GNU grep 2.6








          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Sep 15 '13 at 8:52

























          answered Sep 10 '13 at 11:26









          Stéphane ChazelasStéphane Chazelas

          305k57577931




          305k57577931












          • Actually, GNU grep doesn't care about reading in 1 line, it reads a large portion of the file into a single buffer. "Moreover, GNU grep AVOIDS BREAKING THE INPUT INTO LINES." source: lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2010-August/…

            – Godric Seer
            Sep 10 '13 at 12:32







          • 4





            @GodricSeer, it may still read a large portion of the file into a single buffer, but if it hasn't find the string in there and hasn't found a newline character either, my bet is that it keeps that single buffer in memory and reads the next buffer in, as it will have to display it if a match is found. So, the problem is still the same. In practice, a grep on a 200GB sparse file does fail with OOM.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Sep 10 '13 at 12:44







          • 1





            @GodricSeer, well no. If lines are all small, grep can discard the buffers it has processed so far. You can grep the output of yes indefinitely without using more than a few kilobytes of memory. The problem is the size of the lines.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Sep 10 '13 at 12:51







          • 3





            The GNU grep --null-data option may also be useful here. It forces the use of NUL instead of newline as an input line terminator.

            – iruvar
            Sep 16 '13 at 15:27






          • 1





            @1_CR, good point, though that also sets the output line terminator to NUL.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Sep 16 '13 at 15:35

















          • Actually, GNU grep doesn't care about reading in 1 line, it reads a large portion of the file into a single buffer. "Moreover, GNU grep AVOIDS BREAKING THE INPUT INTO LINES." source: lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2010-August/…

            – Godric Seer
            Sep 10 '13 at 12:32







          • 4





            @GodricSeer, it may still read a large portion of the file into a single buffer, but if it hasn't find the string in there and hasn't found a newline character either, my bet is that it keeps that single buffer in memory and reads the next buffer in, as it will have to display it if a match is found. So, the problem is still the same. In practice, a grep on a 200GB sparse file does fail with OOM.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Sep 10 '13 at 12:44







          • 1





            @GodricSeer, well no. If lines are all small, grep can discard the buffers it has processed so far. You can grep the output of yes indefinitely without using more than a few kilobytes of memory. The problem is the size of the lines.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Sep 10 '13 at 12:51







          • 3





            The GNU grep --null-data option may also be useful here. It forces the use of NUL instead of newline as an input line terminator.

            – iruvar
            Sep 16 '13 at 15:27






          • 1





            @1_CR, good point, though that also sets the output line terminator to NUL.

            – Stéphane Chazelas
            Sep 16 '13 at 15:35
















          Actually, GNU grep doesn't care about reading in 1 line, it reads a large portion of the file into a single buffer. "Moreover, GNU grep AVOIDS BREAKING THE INPUT INTO LINES." source: lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2010-August/…

          – Godric Seer
          Sep 10 '13 at 12:32






          Actually, GNU grep doesn't care about reading in 1 line, it reads a large portion of the file into a single buffer. "Moreover, GNU grep AVOIDS BREAKING THE INPUT INTO LINES." source: lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2010-August/…

          – Godric Seer
          Sep 10 '13 at 12:32





          4




          4





          @GodricSeer, it may still read a large portion of the file into a single buffer, but if it hasn't find the string in there and hasn't found a newline character either, my bet is that it keeps that single buffer in memory and reads the next buffer in, as it will have to display it if a match is found. So, the problem is still the same. In practice, a grep on a 200GB sparse file does fail with OOM.

          – Stéphane Chazelas
          Sep 10 '13 at 12:44






          @GodricSeer, it may still read a large portion of the file into a single buffer, but if it hasn't find the string in there and hasn't found a newline character either, my bet is that it keeps that single buffer in memory and reads the next buffer in, as it will have to display it if a match is found. So, the problem is still the same. In practice, a grep on a 200GB sparse file does fail with OOM.

          – Stéphane Chazelas
          Sep 10 '13 at 12:44





          1




          1





          @GodricSeer, well no. If lines are all small, grep can discard the buffers it has processed so far. You can grep the output of yes indefinitely without using more than a few kilobytes of memory. The problem is the size of the lines.

          – Stéphane Chazelas
          Sep 10 '13 at 12:51






          @GodricSeer, well no. If lines are all small, grep can discard the buffers it has processed so far. You can grep the output of yes indefinitely without using more than a few kilobytes of memory. The problem is the size of the lines.

          – Stéphane Chazelas
          Sep 10 '13 at 12:51





          3




          3





          The GNU grep --null-data option may also be useful here. It forces the use of NUL instead of newline as an input line terminator.

          – iruvar
          Sep 16 '13 at 15:27





          The GNU grep --null-data option may also be useful here. It forces the use of NUL instead of newline as an input line terminator.

          – iruvar
          Sep 16 '13 at 15:27




          1




          1





          @1_CR, good point, though that also sets the output line terminator to NUL.

          – Stéphane Chazelas
          Sep 16 '13 at 15:35





          @1_CR, good point, though that also sets the output line terminator to NUL.

          – Stéphane Chazelas
          Sep 16 '13 at 15:35













          5














          I usually do



          find ~/Documents | xargs grep -ne 'expression'


          I tried a bunch of methods, and found this to be the fastest. Note that this doesn't handle files with spaces the file name very well. If you know this is the case and have a GNU version of grep, you can use:



          find ~/Documents -print0 | xargs -0 grep -ne 'expression'


          If not you can use:



           find ~/Documents -exec grep -ne 'expression' "" ;


          Which will exec a grep for every file.






          share|improve this answer

























          • This will break on files with spaces.

            – Chris Down
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:04











          • Hmm, that is true.

            – Kotte
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:08











          • You can get around that with find -print0 | xargs -0 grep -ne 'expression'

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:09











          • @ChrisDown rather a non-protable solution than a broken-portable solution.

            – reto
            Sep 10 '13 at 16:41











          • @ChrisDown Most major unices have adopted find -print0 and xargs -0 by now: all three BSD, MINIX 3, Solaris 11, …

            – Gilles
            Sep 10 '13 at 21:21















          5














          I usually do



          find ~/Documents | xargs grep -ne 'expression'


          I tried a bunch of methods, and found this to be the fastest. Note that this doesn't handle files with spaces the file name very well. If you know this is the case and have a GNU version of grep, you can use:



          find ~/Documents -print0 | xargs -0 grep -ne 'expression'


          If not you can use:



           find ~/Documents -exec grep -ne 'expression' "" ;


          Which will exec a grep for every file.






          share|improve this answer

























          • This will break on files with spaces.

            – Chris Down
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:04











          • Hmm, that is true.

            – Kotte
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:08











          • You can get around that with find -print0 | xargs -0 grep -ne 'expression'

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:09











          • @ChrisDown rather a non-protable solution than a broken-portable solution.

            – reto
            Sep 10 '13 at 16:41











          • @ChrisDown Most major unices have adopted find -print0 and xargs -0 by now: all three BSD, MINIX 3, Solaris 11, …

            – Gilles
            Sep 10 '13 at 21:21













          5












          5








          5







          I usually do



          find ~/Documents | xargs grep -ne 'expression'


          I tried a bunch of methods, and found this to be the fastest. Note that this doesn't handle files with spaces the file name very well. If you know this is the case and have a GNU version of grep, you can use:



          find ~/Documents -print0 | xargs -0 grep -ne 'expression'


          If not you can use:



           find ~/Documents -exec grep -ne 'expression' "" ;


          Which will exec a grep for every file.






          share|improve this answer















          I usually do



          find ~/Documents | xargs grep -ne 'expression'


          I tried a bunch of methods, and found this to be the fastest. Note that this doesn't handle files with spaces the file name very well. If you know this is the case and have a GNU version of grep, you can use:



          find ~/Documents -print0 | xargs -0 grep -ne 'expression'


          If not you can use:



           find ~/Documents -exec grep -ne 'expression' "" ;


          Which will exec a grep for every file.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Sep 10 '13 at 11:37









          Drav Sloan

          9,82523138




          9,82523138










          answered Sep 10 '13 at 10:46









          KotteKotte

          1,5071323




          1,5071323












          • This will break on files with spaces.

            – Chris Down
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:04











          • Hmm, that is true.

            – Kotte
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:08











          • You can get around that with find -print0 | xargs -0 grep -ne 'expression'

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:09











          • @ChrisDown rather a non-protable solution than a broken-portable solution.

            – reto
            Sep 10 '13 at 16:41











          • @ChrisDown Most major unices have adopted find -print0 and xargs -0 by now: all three BSD, MINIX 3, Solaris 11, …

            – Gilles
            Sep 10 '13 at 21:21

















          • This will break on files with spaces.

            – Chris Down
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:04











          • Hmm, that is true.

            – Kotte
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:08











          • You can get around that with find -print0 | xargs -0 grep -ne 'expression'

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:09











          • @ChrisDown rather a non-protable solution than a broken-portable solution.

            – reto
            Sep 10 '13 at 16:41











          • @ChrisDown Most major unices have adopted find -print0 and xargs -0 by now: all three BSD, MINIX 3, Solaris 11, …

            – Gilles
            Sep 10 '13 at 21:21
















          This will break on files with spaces.

          – Chris Down
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:04





          This will break on files with spaces.

          – Chris Down
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:04













          Hmm, that is true.

          – Kotte
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:08





          Hmm, that is true.

          – Kotte
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:08













          You can get around that with find -print0 | xargs -0 grep -ne 'expression'

          – Drav Sloan
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:09





          You can get around that with find -print0 | xargs -0 grep -ne 'expression'

          – Drav Sloan
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:09













          @ChrisDown rather a non-protable solution than a broken-portable solution.

          – reto
          Sep 10 '13 at 16:41





          @ChrisDown rather a non-protable solution than a broken-portable solution.

          – reto
          Sep 10 '13 at 16:41













          @ChrisDown Most major unices have adopted find -print0 and xargs -0 by now: all three BSD, MINIX 3, Solaris 11, …

          – Gilles
          Sep 10 '13 at 21:21





          @ChrisDown Most major unices have adopted find -print0 and xargs -0 by now: all three BSD, MINIX 3, Solaris 11, …

          – Gilles
          Sep 10 '13 at 21:21











          4














          I can think of a few ways to get around this:




          • Instead of grepping all files at once, do one file at a time. Example:



            find /Documents -type f -exec grep -H Milledgeville "" ;


          • If you only need to know which files contain the words, do grep -l instead. Since grep will there stop searching after the first hit, it won't have to keep reading any huge files



          • If you do want the actual text as well, you could string two separate greps along:



            for file in $( grep -Rl Milledgeville /Documents ); do grep -H Milledgeville "$file"; done






          share|improve this answer

























          • The last example is not valid syntax -- you'd need to perform a command substitution (and you shouldn't do that, since grep outputs using a delimiter that is legal in file names). You also need to quote $file.

            – Chris Down
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:05












          • The latter example suffers with the issue of file names having newline or whitespace in them, (it will cause for to process the file as two arguments)

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:12











          • @DravSloan Your edit, while an improvement, still breaks on legal file names.

            – Chris Down
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:19







          • 1





            Yeah I left it in because it was part of her answer, I just tried to improve it so it would run (for the cases where there is no spaces/newlines etc in files).

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:34












          • Corrections of his -> her, my apologies Jenny :/

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:38















          4














          I can think of a few ways to get around this:




          • Instead of grepping all files at once, do one file at a time. Example:



            find /Documents -type f -exec grep -H Milledgeville "" ;


          • If you only need to know which files contain the words, do grep -l instead. Since grep will there stop searching after the first hit, it won't have to keep reading any huge files



          • If you do want the actual text as well, you could string two separate greps along:



            for file in $( grep -Rl Milledgeville /Documents ); do grep -H Milledgeville "$file"; done






          share|improve this answer

























          • The last example is not valid syntax -- you'd need to perform a command substitution (and you shouldn't do that, since grep outputs using a delimiter that is legal in file names). You also need to quote $file.

            – Chris Down
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:05












          • The latter example suffers with the issue of file names having newline or whitespace in them, (it will cause for to process the file as two arguments)

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:12











          • @DravSloan Your edit, while an improvement, still breaks on legal file names.

            – Chris Down
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:19







          • 1





            Yeah I left it in because it was part of her answer, I just tried to improve it so it would run (for the cases where there is no spaces/newlines etc in files).

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:34












          • Corrections of his -> her, my apologies Jenny :/

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:38













          4












          4








          4







          I can think of a few ways to get around this:




          • Instead of grepping all files at once, do one file at a time. Example:



            find /Documents -type f -exec grep -H Milledgeville "" ;


          • If you only need to know which files contain the words, do grep -l instead. Since grep will there stop searching after the first hit, it won't have to keep reading any huge files



          • If you do want the actual text as well, you could string two separate greps along:



            for file in $( grep -Rl Milledgeville /Documents ); do grep -H Milledgeville "$file"; done






          share|improve this answer















          I can think of a few ways to get around this:




          • Instead of grepping all files at once, do one file at a time. Example:



            find /Documents -type f -exec grep -H Milledgeville "" ;


          • If you only need to know which files contain the words, do grep -l instead. Since grep will there stop searching after the first hit, it won't have to keep reading any huge files



          • If you do want the actual text as well, you could string two separate greps along:



            for file in $( grep -Rl Milledgeville /Documents ); do grep -H Milledgeville "$file"; done







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Sep 10 '13 at 11:31









          Stéphane Chazelas

          305k57577931




          305k57577931










          answered Sep 10 '13 at 9:05









          Jenny DJenny D

          10.6k22746




          10.6k22746












          • The last example is not valid syntax -- you'd need to perform a command substitution (and you shouldn't do that, since grep outputs using a delimiter that is legal in file names). You also need to quote $file.

            – Chris Down
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:05












          • The latter example suffers with the issue of file names having newline or whitespace in them, (it will cause for to process the file as two arguments)

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:12











          • @DravSloan Your edit, while an improvement, still breaks on legal file names.

            – Chris Down
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:19







          • 1





            Yeah I left it in because it was part of her answer, I just tried to improve it so it would run (for the cases where there is no spaces/newlines etc in files).

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:34












          • Corrections of his -> her, my apologies Jenny :/

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:38

















          • The last example is not valid syntax -- you'd need to perform a command substitution (and you shouldn't do that, since grep outputs using a delimiter that is legal in file names). You also need to quote $file.

            – Chris Down
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:05












          • The latter example suffers with the issue of file names having newline or whitespace in them, (it will cause for to process the file as two arguments)

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:12











          • @DravSloan Your edit, while an improvement, still breaks on legal file names.

            – Chris Down
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:19







          • 1





            Yeah I left it in because it was part of her answer, I just tried to improve it so it would run (for the cases where there is no spaces/newlines etc in files).

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:34












          • Corrections of his -> her, my apologies Jenny :/

            – Drav Sloan
            Sep 10 '13 at 11:38
















          The last example is not valid syntax -- you'd need to perform a command substitution (and you shouldn't do that, since grep outputs using a delimiter that is legal in file names). You also need to quote $file.

          – Chris Down
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:05






          The last example is not valid syntax -- you'd need to perform a command substitution (and you shouldn't do that, since grep outputs using a delimiter that is legal in file names). You also need to quote $file.

          – Chris Down
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:05














          The latter example suffers with the issue of file names having newline or whitespace in them, (it will cause for to process the file as two arguments)

          – Drav Sloan
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:12





          The latter example suffers with the issue of file names having newline or whitespace in them, (it will cause for to process the file as two arguments)

          – Drav Sloan
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:12













          @DravSloan Your edit, while an improvement, still breaks on legal file names.

          – Chris Down
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:19






          @DravSloan Your edit, while an improvement, still breaks on legal file names.

          – Chris Down
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:19





          1




          1





          Yeah I left it in because it was part of her answer, I just tried to improve it so it would run (for the cases where there is no spaces/newlines etc in files).

          – Drav Sloan
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:34






          Yeah I left it in because it was part of her answer, I just tried to improve it so it would run (for the cases where there is no spaces/newlines etc in files).

          – Drav Sloan
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:34














          Corrections of his -> her, my apologies Jenny :/

          – Drav Sloan
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:38





          Corrections of his -> her, my apologies Jenny :/

          – Drav Sloan
          Sep 10 '13 at 11:38











          0














          I'm grepping a 6TB disk to search for lost data, and got the memory exhausted -error. This should work for other files too.



          The solution we came up with was to read the disk in chunks by using dd, and grepping the chunks. This is the code (big-grep.sh):



          #problem: grep gives "memory exhausted" error on 6TB disks
          #solution: read it on parts

          FILE=$1
          MATCH=$2

          #TODO this is still incomplete, need to get some way to read the size of the file and how many times to read it (so that modulo is 0)
          BYTES=732565323
          SIZE=6001175126016
          COUNT=8192
          #BYTES=$(expr 4 * 1024)
          #COUNT=$(expr $SIZE / $BYTES)

          #TODO didn't get the variable to work for some readon
          #for I in 1..$COUNT; do
          for I in 0..8192; do
          dd bs=$BYTES skip=$I count=1 if=$FILE status=none |buffer |grep -UF -a --context 6 "$MATCH"
          done





          share|improve this answer























          • Unless you read overlapping chunks, you would possibly miss matches on the chunk boundaries. The overlap must be at least as big as the string that you are expecting to match.

            – Kusalananda
            Jan 28 at 19:59















          0














          I'm grepping a 6TB disk to search for lost data, and got the memory exhausted -error. This should work for other files too.



          The solution we came up with was to read the disk in chunks by using dd, and grepping the chunks. This is the code (big-grep.sh):



          #problem: grep gives "memory exhausted" error on 6TB disks
          #solution: read it on parts

          FILE=$1
          MATCH=$2

          #TODO this is still incomplete, need to get some way to read the size of the file and how many times to read it (so that modulo is 0)
          BYTES=732565323
          SIZE=6001175126016
          COUNT=8192
          #BYTES=$(expr 4 * 1024)
          #COUNT=$(expr $SIZE / $BYTES)

          #TODO didn't get the variable to work for some readon
          #for I in 1..$COUNT; do
          for I in 0..8192; do
          dd bs=$BYTES skip=$I count=1 if=$FILE status=none |buffer |grep -UF -a --context 6 "$MATCH"
          done





          share|improve this answer























          • Unless you read overlapping chunks, you would possibly miss matches on the chunk boundaries. The overlap must be at least as big as the string that you are expecting to match.

            – Kusalananda
            Jan 28 at 19:59













          0












          0








          0







          I'm grepping a 6TB disk to search for lost data, and got the memory exhausted -error. This should work for other files too.



          The solution we came up with was to read the disk in chunks by using dd, and grepping the chunks. This is the code (big-grep.sh):



          #problem: grep gives "memory exhausted" error on 6TB disks
          #solution: read it on parts

          FILE=$1
          MATCH=$2

          #TODO this is still incomplete, need to get some way to read the size of the file and how many times to read it (so that modulo is 0)
          BYTES=732565323
          SIZE=6001175126016
          COUNT=8192
          #BYTES=$(expr 4 * 1024)
          #COUNT=$(expr $SIZE / $BYTES)

          #TODO didn't get the variable to work for some readon
          #for I in 1..$COUNT; do
          for I in 0..8192; do
          dd bs=$BYTES skip=$I count=1 if=$FILE status=none |buffer |grep -UF -a --context 6 "$MATCH"
          done





          share|improve this answer













          I'm grepping a 6TB disk to search for lost data, and got the memory exhausted -error. This should work for other files too.



          The solution we came up with was to read the disk in chunks by using dd, and grepping the chunks. This is the code (big-grep.sh):



          #problem: grep gives "memory exhausted" error on 6TB disks
          #solution: read it on parts

          FILE=$1
          MATCH=$2

          #TODO this is still incomplete, need to get some way to read the size of the file and how many times to read it (so that modulo is 0)
          BYTES=732565323
          SIZE=6001175126016
          COUNT=8192
          #BYTES=$(expr 4 * 1024)
          #COUNT=$(expr $SIZE / $BYTES)

          #TODO didn't get the variable to work for some readon
          #for I in 1..$COUNT; do
          for I in 0..8192; do
          dd bs=$BYTES skip=$I count=1 if=$FILE status=none |buffer |grep -UF -a --context 6 "$MATCH"
          done






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Jan 28 at 19:35









          PHZ.fi-PharazonPHZ.fi-Pharazon

          214




          214












          • Unless you read overlapping chunks, you would possibly miss matches on the chunk boundaries. The overlap must be at least as big as the string that you are expecting to match.

            – Kusalananda
            Jan 28 at 19:59

















          • Unless you read overlapping chunks, you would possibly miss matches on the chunk boundaries. The overlap must be at least as big as the string that you are expecting to match.

            – Kusalananda
            Jan 28 at 19:59
















          Unless you read overlapping chunks, you would possibly miss matches on the chunk boundaries. The overlap must be at least as big as the string that you are expecting to match.

          – Kusalananda
          Jan 28 at 19:59





          Unless you read overlapping chunks, you would possibly miss matches on the chunk boundaries. The overlap must be at least as big as the string that you are expecting to match.

          – Kusalananda
          Jan 28 at 19:59

















          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














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f90036%2fgrep-memory-exhausted%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown






          Popular posts from this blog

          How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

          Bahrain

          Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay