On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:46:28AM -0600, Scott Cheloha wrote: > > On Jan 29, 2020, at 10:26 AM, Jason McIntyre <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 11:12:56AM -0500, David Goerger wrote: > >> Monday, 20200127 18:29-0500, Daniel Jakots wrote: > >>> Can't you achieve what you want with `du -sh * | sort -h`? du(1)'s > >>> -h options will automatically select the best suffix and sort(1)'s > >>> -h will sort first using the suffix then the numerical value. > >> > >> Thanks! I didn't know about "sort -h". That indeed does what I want, > >> and is a bit more readable (e.g. 8G instead of the quick mental math > >> in evaluating 8192M). Like Todd said, old habits die hard. And at > >> least in my case, I'm pleasantly surprised any time a tool features > >> smart extensions and I don't have to manipulate arrays of raw > >> integers. :) > >> > >> Actually, I think you've convinced me that using "sort -h" is better. > >> In particular, I like that it future-proofs us up to and including > >> yottabytes. What about something like this, to highlight this common > >> use case? > >> > >> --- > >> Index: du.1 > >> =================================================================== > >> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/du/du.1,v > >> retrieving revision 1.35 > >> diff -u -p -r1.35 du.1 > >> --- du.1 2 Sep 2019 21:18:41 -0000 1.35 > >> +++ du.1 29 Jan 2020 16:02:45 -0000 > >> @@ -147,6 +147,16 @@ option is specified. > >> .El > >> .Sh EXIT STATUS > >> .Ex -std du > >> +.Sh EXAMPLES > >> +To sort human-readable output by size, one might use the human-readable > >> +extension to > >> +.Xr sort 1 , > >> +for example: > >> +.Pp > >> +.Dl du -sh * | sort -h > >> +.Pp > >> +This is useful to quickly identify large files and folders consuming > >> +disk space. > >> .Sh SEE ALSO > >> .Xr df 1 , > >> .Xr fts_open 3 , > >> > > > > [...] > > > > - i guess if you have a lot of stuff it makes sense to have the biggest > > files displayed at the end of the list. but generally wouldn;t you > > want your biggest files listed first? we could add -r to sort. > > Our sort(1) has an '-r' flag for "reverse". >
yes, that's what i meant by "add -r to sort". jmc
