UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers

You will usually find that this forum can provide much better help and provide it sooner, if you state all of the requirements up front. When you hide some of the requirements (or add on new requirements after an initial question has been answered) you waste a lot of time for the volunteers who are trying to help you.

Thanks for all the input y'all. I think I've found a reasonable solution. I ended up with a nested for statement that looks like this:



for p in /u01 /u02 /home; do for i in `find $p -type f -uid +100`; do getfacl $i; done; done >> output.txt



I entered this on the command line. It loops through the directories /u01, /u02 and /home using the find command to search those directories for regular files (-type f) with uid greater than 100 (-uid +100). It then uses the results of that find command to get the ACL for each file found (getfacl $i) and send the output to ouptput.txt

If that nested for statement works for you, the following will do exactly the same thing much more efficiently and faster:

Code:

find /u01 /u02 /home -type f -uid +100 -exec getfacl {} + >> output.txt

Haha, yeah I do tend to make things more complicated sometimes. That' s working much better. One question though, the "+" sign before the redirectors, I don't understand that one. I got an error and had to change it from

Code:

{} + >>

to

Code:

{} /; >>

.

Please try the command:

Code:

man find

and look at the description of the -exec primary. The + tells find to pass multiple filenames to getfacl instead of invoking getfacl once for each found filename.

Note also that using /; instead of + or \; should have resulted in a diagnostic from find saying something like:

Code:

find: -exec: no terminating ";" or "+"

Please show us the exact command line you entered and the exact diagnostic message(s) that find produced.

On a Solaris system, using \; instead of + should produce the same results, but consume a lot more system resources doing so.

HP-UX 11.23 find and SLED 11 find have a bug with + so \; is safer anyway.

\( -user user1 -o -user user2 \)
searches for user1 or user2.

That is unfortunate. HP-UX is a UNIX-branded system and correct operation of + is required for conformance. So someone should ask HP to fix this bug.

In a case like this, using + instead of \; can easily improve performance by a couple of orders of magnitude if hundreds of files are being processed.