Re^2: Run system find -exec on remote machine

Indeed. Apart from nicer syntax, xargs is much faster because it doesn't fork the command for each file. The only nuisance I've encountered with xargs is portably coping with space-riddled file names. As Aristotle points out, GNU find/xargs work well. Lacking GNU utilities, I've used this:

find . -print0 | xargs -0 ls -l                 (GNU only)
find . -print  | sed 's/ /\\ /g' | xargs ls -l  (works everywhere)
[download]

Comment on Re^2: Run system find -exec on remote machine Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Run system find -exec on remote machine by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Dec 21, 2004 at 06:25 UTC
The BSD `find(1)`/`xargs(1)` also understand the extra switches. Your other version unfortunately still breaks on embedded newlines, which are the most important reason to use the switches. Absent of a way to make `find(1)` separate filenames with nulls (such as on Solaris), I'd rather fall back on `-exec`. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re^3: Run system find -exec on remote machine by gaal (Parson) on Dec 21, 2004 at 06:47 UTC
Your suggestions (`@you > 1`) make sense, and I use `xargs` a lot on local machines; no reason to avoid it on remote ones. In regard your comment about `xargs` bunching up args and thus forking off less: sure, but sometimes that's not what you want (some commands really do need to run one file at a time). So just for the sake of completeness (I know you may already know this): the `-n` switch to `xargs` accepts a number of arguments to bunch up to every forked command. The two following lines are roughtly equivalent: `find . -exec somecmd \{} \; find . -print0 \| xargs -0 -n 1 somecmd` [download] BTW, some versions of `xargs` have a nifty concurrency switch, `-P` on the GNU variant. This too is sometimes very much not what you want, though :)	[reply] [d/l] [select]