6

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?

6 Answers 6

6

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

du -shc */
6
  • 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
    Commented Nov 29, 2012 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. Commented Nov 29, 2012 at 7:51
  • This one is fine if you don't have hidden directories to include. Commented Nov 30, 2012 at 9:08
  • Easily adapted to hidden directories: du -shc */ .??*/ (The ?? is to exclude . and ..) Commented Nov 30, 2012 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
    Commented Dec 3, 2012 at 19:38
7

Add -maxdepth 1 to your find parameters.

2

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?]

1

You can use the -maxdepth option.

1

I'm using this one,

ls | xargs du -sh 

basically there are many ways to skin a cat :)

1

You can also do this:

du -ah .

What it does is to take the subdirectories of the current directory, find its individual's size and in the end, it prints the total size.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .