Xref: utzoo comp.unix.wizards:15798 comp.unix.questions:13110
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!ames!lll-winken!uunet!amgraf!brian386!news
From: news@brian386.UUCP (Wm. Brian McCane)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: unix question: files per directory
Message-ID: <432@brian386.UUCP>
Date: 27 Apr 89 04:47:28 GMT
References: <24110@beta.lanl.gov> <4822@macom1.UUCP> <776@helios.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: news@brian386.UUCP (Wm. Brian McCane)
Distribution: na
Organization: Harmon Electronics, Inc  Grain Valley, MO
Lines: 46

In article <776@helios.toronto.edu> sysruth@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Ruth Milner) writes:
>In article <4822@macom1.UUCP> rikki@macom1.UUCP (R. L. Welsh) writes:
=>From article <24110@beta.lanl.gov>, by dxxb@beta.lanl.gov (David W. Barts):
==> 
==> How many files can there be in a single UNIX directory
=>
=>You will undoubtedly run out of inodes before you reach any theoretical
=>limit.  
>
>Another thing you may run into is that some UNIX utilities seem to store
>the names of all of the files somewhere before they do anything with them,
>and if there are a lot of files in the directory, you won't be able to
>run the utility on all of them at once. (This won't prevent you from creating
>them, though). In particular I am thinking of "rm". When cleaning up after
>installing the NAG library, I tried to "rm *" in the source code directory.
>It refused (I think the error was "too many files"). I had to go through and 
>"rm a*", "rm b*" etc. until it was down to a level that rm would accept. I 
>
>Does anyone know:
>     1. why "rm" does it this way, and
>     2. are there other utilities similarly affected?
>
> Ruth Milner          UUCP - {uunet,pyramid}!utai!helios.physics!sysruth


You didn't actually run into a "rm" bug/feature, you hit a shell
FEECHER.  The shell expands for the regexp, and then passes the
generated list to the exec'd command as the arguments.  "rm" can only
handle a limited number of files, (or it may be the shell will only pass
a limited number, who knows, its a FEECHER after all ;-), so rm then
gave the error message of too many filenames.  I would like it if "rm"
were similar to most other commands, ie. you could rm "*", preventing
the expansion of the * to all file names until "rm" got it, but it
returns the message "rm: * non-existent" on my machine, Sys5r3.0.

	brian

(HMmmm.  That new version of "rm" I mentioned sounded kinda useful, I
wonder if anyone out there has 1 already?? HINT ;-)


-- 
Wm. Brian McCane                    | Life is full of doors that won't open
                                    | when you knock, equally spaced amid
Disclaimer: I don't think they even | those that open when you don't want
            admit I work here.      | them to. - Roger Zelazny "Blood of Amber"