The disadvantage is that the command will include files in the current folder and will miss folders beginning with a dot (.), i.e. hidden folders. A more complete solution might be:
$ find . -maxdepth 1 -type d | xargs du -ms | sort -n Regards, - Robert On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Scott Granneman<[email protected]> wrote: > > I'll be damned! Mike, that's EXACTLY what I was looking for! Thank you! > > Scott > -- > R. Scott Granneman > [email protected] ~ www.granneman.com > Full list of publications @ http://www.granneman.com/publications > My new book: Google Apps Deciphered @ http://www.granneman.com/books > > "To label people as death-deserving enemies because of disagreements > about real world politics is bad enough. To do the same for > disagreements about a delusional world inhabited by archangels, demons > and imaginary friends is ludicrously tragic." > ---Richard Dawkins > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Mike Bigalke<[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't know if I remember what exactly you were looking for but I thought >> the du command might be helpful. >> >> Here's something I came across: >> >> Go to the particular directory which sub-directories should be listed with >> size. >> >> Then type this command, >> >> du -cskh * >> >> P.S : du -sh command prints the size of the directory itself >> >> http://yetatb.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html#726737339297595767 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Central West End Linux Users Group (via Google Groups) Main page: http://www.cwelug.org To post: [email protected] To subscribe: [email protected] To unsubscribe: [email protected] More options: http://groups.google.com/group/cwelug -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
