Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I want to get the size of all directories within a specific directory. I was thinking something like

find . -type d -exec du -sh {} \;

But that returns all directories recursively. How can I limit the depth?

share|improve this question

5 Answers 5

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Why use find at all and not simply glob for directories?

du -shc */
share|improve this answer
    
Well, the find option is more cross-platform, with the same command working on GNU/Linux and BSD/MacOSX systems (provided that -maxdepth 1 is specified before the -type d argument). The OSX version of du will give a syntax error with du -shc */. –  platforms Nov 29 '12 at 7:49
1  
Fair point, but do note that the poster used linux as a tag, so I was assuming linux in my answer. –  Dennis Kaarsemaker Nov 29 '12 at 7:51
    
This one is fine if you don't have hidden directories to include. –  Christophe Drevet Nov 30 '12 at 9:08
    
Easily adapted to hidden directories: du -shc */ .??*/ (The ?? is to exclude . and ..) –  Dennis Kaarsemaker Nov 30 '12 at 10:17
    
This actually IS best on Linux, because it allows you to ignore the current working directory, only listing the subdirectories (what the OP specified). Find includes the . directory. It also gives you the choice to see the sum total or not. –  platforms Dec 3 '12 at 19:38

Add -maxdepth 1 to your find parameters.

share|improve this answer

You can use the -maxdepth option.

share|improve this answer

This one should do the job efficiently :

du -hc --max-depth=1

One big difference I think of is that, when encountering hardlinked files, they will be counted only once. In a find loop, they will be counted once per base directory. [Is it correct english?]

share|improve this answer

I'm using this one,

ls | xargs du -sh 

basically there are many ways to skin a cat :)

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.