Re: Windows vs stat() Directory Size -- MIDRANGE-L

Good News Everybody!

A new search engine is coming soon.

As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.

Subject: Re: Windows vs stat() Directory Size
From: "Bill Meecham" <bmeecham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 12:25:11 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Hey Scott,

What I'm after is the disk space that the directory is using.  This is for 
resource usage and IFS space being used.  I think allocated space is more like 
what I need.  Otherwise I would have to read through the tree at all levels for 
the top directory value...right?  
That would take a lot of time unless I stuck to specific directories.

Your thoughts?

thanks,
bill
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Scott Klement 
  To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion 
  Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 12:16 PM
  Subject: Re: Windows vs stat() Directory Size


  Hi Bill,

  Do you mean the size of a directory?  Or do you mean the size of the 
  objects in the directory?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.