Can I shorten this filter, that finds disk sizes over 100G?How can I monitor disk io?Grep command that finds/excludes all line where a separator character appears a certain number of times?How to get disk name that contains a specific partitionhow to find the MAX IO a physical disk can supportHow can I filter out strings that contain no numbers within them?How soon will linux notice that a disk has been detached ? And can it be quicker?Disk io stat “averaged” over a period of time

What does Bitcoin policy language offer the developer that Miniscript doesn't? What is the difference between Bitcoin policy language and Miniscript?

What is the meaning of 奥手 here?

Who is this famous person?

Trying to find a comic strip about "What your clothes say about you"

Which battle was the most lopsided result in terms of casualties?

A Star Trek book I read in the eighties, Kirk is shunned for destroying a civilization

Impact wrench on spark plugs?

How to implement the five star notation in Latex

How did Krennic locate the Erso's hideout?

Just bought HD650's with Scarlet 2i2 solo and it sounds too QUIET

Is it possible to get reverse life insurance?

A randomized encryption program

Does any country have free college & open admissions?

Sun dried tomatoes

Average Two Letters

Warranty on lock damaged during attempted theft

My mysterious "ruins" wander around and change on their own, what'd be a rational way for them to do that?

What DC should I use for someone trying to survive indefinitely solely with an alchemy jug as their only source of food and water? (survival campaign)

How to get best taste out of tomatoes?

Does the Antonov An-225 have an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU)?

How to communicate faster than the system clock

How is antioxidant activity of carotenoids determined?

Object Oriented Programming - how to avoid duplication in processes that differ slightly depending on a variable

At what point in time would humans notice a 21st century satellite observing them?



Can I shorten this filter, that finds disk sizes over 100G?


How can I monitor disk io?Grep command that finds/excludes all line where a separator character appears a certain number of times?How to get disk name that contains a specific partitionhow to find the MAX IO a physical disk can supportHow can I filter out strings that contain no numbers within them?How soon will linux notice that a disk has been detached ? And can it be quicker?Disk io stat “averaged” over a period of time






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;









12

















My goal is to get the disks greater than 100G from lsblk.



I have it working, but it's awkward. I'm pretty sure it can be shortened. Either by using something totally different than lsblk, or maybe I can filter human readable numbers directly with awk.



Here's what I put together:



lsblk | grep disk | awk 'print$1,$4' | grep G | sed 's/.$//' | awk 'if($2>100)print$1'


It outputs only the sdx and nvmexxx part of the disks larger than 100G. Exactly what I need.



I am happy with it, but am eager to learn more from you Gurus 😉










share|improve this question




























  • between 100-999GB and larger than 100T, but nothing between 1-99T, i presume? (terabytes~)

    – hanshenrik
    Aug 2 at 21:13












  • Yes that is one flaw that slipped my attention and was already discussed in the answers. I therefore accepted the answer to do the filter based on byte size instead of human readable. If you of another method I'll be happy to learn about that to.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 2 at 21:47

















12

















My goal is to get the disks greater than 100G from lsblk.



I have it working, but it's awkward. I'm pretty sure it can be shortened. Either by using something totally different than lsblk, or maybe I can filter human readable numbers directly with awk.



Here's what I put together:



lsblk | grep disk | awk 'print$1,$4' | grep G | sed 's/.$//' | awk 'if($2>100)print$1'


It outputs only the sdx and nvmexxx part of the disks larger than 100G. Exactly what I need.



I am happy with it, but am eager to learn more from you Gurus 😉










share|improve this question




























  • between 100-999GB and larger than 100T, but nothing between 1-99T, i presume? (terabytes~)

    – hanshenrik
    Aug 2 at 21:13












  • Yes that is one flaw that slipped my attention and was already discussed in the answers. I therefore accepted the answer to do the filter based on byte size instead of human readable. If you of another method I'll be happy to learn about that to.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 2 at 21:47













12












12








12


1






My goal is to get the disks greater than 100G from lsblk.



I have it working, but it's awkward. I'm pretty sure it can be shortened. Either by using something totally different than lsblk, or maybe I can filter human readable numbers directly with awk.



Here's what I put together:



lsblk | grep disk | awk 'print$1,$4' | grep G | sed 's/.$//' | awk 'if($2>100)print$1'


It outputs only the sdx and nvmexxx part of the disks larger than 100G. Exactly what I need.



I am happy with it, but am eager to learn more from you Gurus 😉










share|improve this question

















My goal is to get the disks greater than 100G from lsblk.



I have it working, but it's awkward. I'm pretty sure it can be shortened. Either by using something totally different than lsblk, or maybe I can filter human readable numbers directly with awk.



Here's what I put together:



lsblk | grep disk | awk 'print$1,$4' | grep G | sed 's/.$//' | awk 'if($2>100)print$1'


It outputs only the sdx and nvmexxx part of the disks larger than 100G. Exactly what I need.



I am happy with it, but am eager to learn more from you Gurus 😉







awk grep disk lsblk






share|improve this question
















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Aug 1 at 18:52









Jeff Schaller

51.5k11 gold badges76 silver badges171 bronze badges




51.5k11 gold badges76 silver badges171 bronze badges










asked Aug 1 at 10:08









chalybeumchalybeum

831 silver badge7 bronze badges




831 silver badge7 bronze badges















  • between 100-999GB and larger than 100T, but nothing between 1-99T, i presume? (terabytes~)

    – hanshenrik
    Aug 2 at 21:13












  • Yes that is one flaw that slipped my attention and was already discussed in the answers. I therefore accepted the answer to do the filter based on byte size instead of human readable. If you of another method I'll be happy to learn about that to.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 2 at 21:47

















  • between 100-999GB and larger than 100T, but nothing between 1-99T, i presume? (terabytes~)

    – hanshenrik
    Aug 2 at 21:13












  • Yes that is one flaw that slipped my attention and was already discussed in the answers. I therefore accepted the answer to do the filter based on byte size instead of human readable. If you of another method I'll be happy to learn about that to.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 2 at 21:47
















between 100-999GB and larger than 100T, but nothing between 1-99T, i presume? (terabytes~)

– hanshenrik
Aug 2 at 21:13






between 100-999GB and larger than 100T, but nothing between 1-99T, i presume? (terabytes~)

– hanshenrik
Aug 2 at 21:13














Yes that is one flaw that slipped my attention and was already discussed in the answers. I therefore accepted the answer to do the filter based on byte size instead of human readable. If you of another method I'll be happy to learn about that to.

– chalybeum
Aug 2 at 21:47





Yes that is one flaw that slipped my attention and was already discussed in the answers. I therefore accepted the answer to do the filter based on byte size instead of human readable. If you of another method I'll be happy to learn about that to.

– chalybeum
Aug 2 at 21:47










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















28


















You can specify the form of output you want from lsblk:



% lsblk -nblo NAME,SIZE
mmcblk0 15931539456
mmcblk0p1 268435456
mmcblk0p2 15662038528


Options used:



-b, --bytes
Print the SIZE column in bytes rather than in human-readable format.

-l, --list
Use the list output format.

-n, --noheadings
Do not print a header line.

-o, --output list
Specify which output columns to print. Use --help to get a list of all supported
columns.


Then the filtering is easier:



% lsblk -nblo NAME,SIZE | awk '$2 > 4*2^30 print $1' # greater than 4 GiB
mmcblk0
mmcblk0p2


In your case, that'd be 100*2^30 for 100GiB or 100e9/1e11 for 100GB.






share|improve this answer




























  • Uhhh, that's clever! Weeding out what's not needed in the first place. One question: You're using x*2**30 just for consistency with the bytes? Would there be drawback to use s.th. like 10**3?

    – chalybeum
    Aug 1 at 10:44












  • @chalybeum yes, for bytes. No, you can use 10**9. The values don't differ all much.

    – muru
    Aug 1 at 10:50











  • Note that OP is filtering out partitions in the one-liner.

    – UncleCarl
    Aug 1 at 19:59











  • @UncleCarl noted

    – muru
    Aug 1 at 20:00






  • 1





    Note that in this particular case of 100G boundary awk could also be shortened to egrep 'd12,' to remove lines with <12 digits in a sequence. Awk is of course more universal.

    – Gnudiff
    Aug 2 at 7:04



















18


















You can also tell lsblk to output in JSON format and do the filtering with jq:



$ lsblk -Jb | jq -r '..|select(.size? >= 1e11).name'
sda
sda2


Or:



$ lsblk -Jb | jq -r '..|select(.type? == "disk" and .size? >= 1e11).name'
sda


To limit to entries of type disk.



(1e11 being 100 GB. Replace with 107374182400 (or 100*1024*1024*1024) for 100 GiB. Because of rounding, lsblk itself without -b reports 100G for sizes ranging from about 99.9278 to 100.0488 GiB (for some reason))



With lsblk -OJb, lsblk reports all available information which lets you do a more fined-grained selection or output more or more relevant information.



You could also get the information directly from /sys. With zsh:



$ printf '%sn' /sys/class/block/*(e'[(($(<$REPLY/size) * 512 >= 1e11))]':t)
sda
sda2





share|improve this answer




























  • This is a true answer from a Guru, no one will be able to read it. :D

    – Archemar
    Aug 1 at 14:50











  • I take this as a nice to know. But at this stage of my journey in bash I don't want to introduce further complexity by using yet another tool.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 2 at 6:13











  • That's a nice application of jq (which I learned about only some months ago).

    – Dubu
    Aug 2 at 9:47


















6


















try



lsblk| awk '$4 ~ /G$/ && $4+0 > 100 print $1'


this will grep and filter at same time.




  • $4 ~ /G$/ get filed with size in G


  • $4+0 > 100 get size over 100G


  • print $1 print NAME

as a rule you should never need to use grep and awk in same pipe.



to get only disk (and no partition) : awk filtering



lsblk| awk '$4 ~ /G$/ && $4+0 > 100 && $6 == "disk" print $1'


where




  • $6 == "disk" select only column with disk

to get only disk (and no partition) : lsblk filtering



lsblk --nodeps| awk '$4 ~ /G$/ && $4+0 > 100 print $1'


where




  • --nodeps : -d, --nodeps don't print slaves or holders





share|improve this answer




























  • Almost there. It still prints partitions. But I think I can get behind that when I have a bit free time.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 1 at 10:34






  • 1





    @chalybeum I fixed that, same filtering trick can be applied to muru's answer.

    – Archemar
    Aug 1 at 12:36











  • (Though I'd probably use the --no-deps option, in keeping with the general style of that answer)

    – muru
    Aug 1 at 13:00






  • 2





    I'm afraid this will fail to catch disks whose size is shown in terabytes (or bigger units).

    – fra-san
    Aug 1 at 15:11











  • @fra-san fair point and is also true for my original solution. So I'm taking the disk filter bit from here and put it in the byte conversion.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 2 at 6:10












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);














draft saved

draft discarded
















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f533331%2fcan-i-shorten-this-filter-that-finds-disk-sizes-over-100g%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown


























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









28


















You can specify the form of output you want from lsblk:



% lsblk -nblo NAME,SIZE
mmcblk0 15931539456
mmcblk0p1 268435456
mmcblk0p2 15662038528


Options used:



-b, --bytes
Print the SIZE column in bytes rather than in human-readable format.

-l, --list
Use the list output format.

-n, --noheadings
Do not print a header line.

-o, --output list
Specify which output columns to print. Use --help to get a list of all supported
columns.


Then the filtering is easier:



% lsblk -nblo NAME,SIZE | awk '$2 > 4*2^30 print $1' # greater than 4 GiB
mmcblk0
mmcblk0p2


In your case, that'd be 100*2^30 for 100GiB or 100e9/1e11 for 100GB.






share|improve this answer




























  • Uhhh, that's clever! Weeding out what's not needed in the first place. One question: You're using x*2**30 just for consistency with the bytes? Would there be drawback to use s.th. like 10**3?

    – chalybeum
    Aug 1 at 10:44












  • @chalybeum yes, for bytes. No, you can use 10**9. The values don't differ all much.

    – muru
    Aug 1 at 10:50











  • Note that OP is filtering out partitions in the one-liner.

    – UncleCarl
    Aug 1 at 19:59











  • @UncleCarl noted

    – muru
    Aug 1 at 20:00






  • 1





    Note that in this particular case of 100G boundary awk could also be shortened to egrep 'd12,' to remove lines with <12 digits in a sequence. Awk is of course more universal.

    – Gnudiff
    Aug 2 at 7:04
















28


















You can specify the form of output you want from lsblk:



% lsblk -nblo NAME,SIZE
mmcblk0 15931539456
mmcblk0p1 268435456
mmcblk0p2 15662038528


Options used:



-b, --bytes
Print the SIZE column in bytes rather than in human-readable format.

-l, --list
Use the list output format.

-n, --noheadings
Do not print a header line.

-o, --output list
Specify which output columns to print. Use --help to get a list of all supported
columns.


Then the filtering is easier:



% lsblk -nblo NAME,SIZE | awk '$2 > 4*2^30 print $1' # greater than 4 GiB
mmcblk0
mmcblk0p2


In your case, that'd be 100*2^30 for 100GiB or 100e9/1e11 for 100GB.






share|improve this answer




























  • Uhhh, that's clever! Weeding out what's not needed in the first place. One question: You're using x*2**30 just for consistency with the bytes? Would there be drawback to use s.th. like 10**3?

    – chalybeum
    Aug 1 at 10:44












  • @chalybeum yes, for bytes. No, you can use 10**9. The values don't differ all much.

    – muru
    Aug 1 at 10:50











  • Note that OP is filtering out partitions in the one-liner.

    – UncleCarl
    Aug 1 at 19:59











  • @UncleCarl noted

    – muru
    Aug 1 at 20:00






  • 1





    Note that in this particular case of 100G boundary awk could also be shortened to egrep 'd12,' to remove lines with <12 digits in a sequence. Awk is of course more universal.

    – Gnudiff
    Aug 2 at 7:04














28














28










28









You can specify the form of output you want from lsblk:



% lsblk -nblo NAME,SIZE
mmcblk0 15931539456
mmcblk0p1 268435456
mmcblk0p2 15662038528


Options used:



-b, --bytes
Print the SIZE column in bytes rather than in human-readable format.

-l, --list
Use the list output format.

-n, --noheadings
Do not print a header line.

-o, --output list
Specify which output columns to print. Use --help to get a list of all supported
columns.


Then the filtering is easier:



% lsblk -nblo NAME,SIZE | awk '$2 > 4*2^30 print $1' # greater than 4 GiB
mmcblk0
mmcblk0p2


In your case, that'd be 100*2^30 for 100GiB or 100e9/1e11 for 100GB.






share|improve this answer
















You can specify the form of output you want from lsblk:



% lsblk -nblo NAME,SIZE
mmcblk0 15931539456
mmcblk0p1 268435456
mmcblk0p2 15662038528


Options used:



-b, --bytes
Print the SIZE column in bytes rather than in human-readable format.

-l, --list
Use the list output format.

-n, --noheadings
Do not print a header line.

-o, --output list
Specify which output columns to print. Use --help to get a list of all supported
columns.


Then the filtering is easier:



% lsblk -nblo NAME,SIZE | awk '$2 > 4*2^30 print $1' # greater than 4 GiB
mmcblk0
mmcblk0p2


In your case, that'd be 100*2^30 for 100GiB or 100e9/1e11 for 100GB.







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited Aug 1 at 16:06









Stéphane Chazelas

341k59 gold badges671 silver badges1049 bronze badges




341k59 gold badges671 silver badges1049 bronze badges










answered Aug 1 at 10:28









murumuru

46.2k5 gold badges115 silver badges191 bronze badges




46.2k5 gold badges115 silver badges191 bronze badges















  • Uhhh, that's clever! Weeding out what's not needed in the first place. One question: You're using x*2**30 just for consistency with the bytes? Would there be drawback to use s.th. like 10**3?

    – chalybeum
    Aug 1 at 10:44












  • @chalybeum yes, for bytes. No, you can use 10**9. The values don't differ all much.

    – muru
    Aug 1 at 10:50











  • Note that OP is filtering out partitions in the one-liner.

    – UncleCarl
    Aug 1 at 19:59











  • @UncleCarl noted

    – muru
    Aug 1 at 20:00






  • 1





    Note that in this particular case of 100G boundary awk could also be shortened to egrep 'd12,' to remove lines with <12 digits in a sequence. Awk is of course more universal.

    – Gnudiff
    Aug 2 at 7:04


















  • Uhhh, that's clever! Weeding out what's not needed in the first place. One question: You're using x*2**30 just for consistency with the bytes? Would there be drawback to use s.th. like 10**3?

    – chalybeum
    Aug 1 at 10:44












  • @chalybeum yes, for bytes. No, you can use 10**9. The values don't differ all much.

    – muru
    Aug 1 at 10:50











  • Note that OP is filtering out partitions in the one-liner.

    – UncleCarl
    Aug 1 at 19:59











  • @UncleCarl noted

    – muru
    Aug 1 at 20:00






  • 1





    Note that in this particular case of 100G boundary awk could also be shortened to egrep 'd12,' to remove lines with <12 digits in a sequence. Awk is of course more universal.

    – Gnudiff
    Aug 2 at 7:04

















Uhhh, that's clever! Weeding out what's not needed in the first place. One question: You're using x*2**30 just for consistency with the bytes? Would there be drawback to use s.th. like 10**3?

– chalybeum
Aug 1 at 10:44






Uhhh, that's clever! Weeding out what's not needed in the first place. One question: You're using x*2**30 just for consistency with the bytes? Would there be drawback to use s.th. like 10**3?

– chalybeum
Aug 1 at 10:44














@chalybeum yes, for bytes. No, you can use 10**9. The values don't differ all much.

– muru
Aug 1 at 10:50





@chalybeum yes, for bytes. No, you can use 10**9. The values don't differ all much.

– muru
Aug 1 at 10:50













Note that OP is filtering out partitions in the one-liner.

– UncleCarl
Aug 1 at 19:59





Note that OP is filtering out partitions in the one-liner.

– UncleCarl
Aug 1 at 19:59













@UncleCarl noted

– muru
Aug 1 at 20:00





@UncleCarl noted

– muru
Aug 1 at 20:00




1




1





Note that in this particular case of 100G boundary awk could also be shortened to egrep 'd12,' to remove lines with <12 digits in a sequence. Awk is of course more universal.

– Gnudiff
Aug 2 at 7:04






Note that in this particular case of 100G boundary awk could also be shortened to egrep 'd12,' to remove lines with <12 digits in a sequence. Awk is of course more universal.

– Gnudiff
Aug 2 at 7:04














18


















You can also tell lsblk to output in JSON format and do the filtering with jq:



$ lsblk -Jb | jq -r '..|select(.size? >= 1e11).name'
sda
sda2


Or:



$ lsblk -Jb | jq -r '..|select(.type? == "disk" and .size? >= 1e11).name'
sda


To limit to entries of type disk.



(1e11 being 100 GB. Replace with 107374182400 (or 100*1024*1024*1024) for 100 GiB. Because of rounding, lsblk itself without -b reports 100G for sizes ranging from about 99.9278 to 100.0488 GiB (for some reason))



With lsblk -OJb, lsblk reports all available information which lets you do a more fined-grained selection or output more or more relevant information.



You could also get the information directly from /sys. With zsh:



$ printf '%sn' /sys/class/block/*(e'[(($(<$REPLY/size) * 512 >= 1e11))]':t)
sda
sda2





share|improve this answer




























  • This is a true answer from a Guru, no one will be able to read it. :D

    – Archemar
    Aug 1 at 14:50











  • I take this as a nice to know. But at this stage of my journey in bash I don't want to introduce further complexity by using yet another tool.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 2 at 6:13











  • That's a nice application of jq (which I learned about only some months ago).

    – Dubu
    Aug 2 at 9:47















18


















You can also tell lsblk to output in JSON format and do the filtering with jq:



$ lsblk -Jb | jq -r '..|select(.size? >= 1e11).name'
sda
sda2


Or:



$ lsblk -Jb | jq -r '..|select(.type? == "disk" and .size? >= 1e11).name'
sda


To limit to entries of type disk.



(1e11 being 100 GB. Replace with 107374182400 (or 100*1024*1024*1024) for 100 GiB. Because of rounding, lsblk itself without -b reports 100G for sizes ranging from about 99.9278 to 100.0488 GiB (for some reason))



With lsblk -OJb, lsblk reports all available information which lets you do a more fined-grained selection or output more or more relevant information.



You could also get the information directly from /sys. With zsh:



$ printf '%sn' /sys/class/block/*(e'[(($(<$REPLY/size) * 512 >= 1e11))]':t)
sda
sda2





share|improve this answer




























  • This is a true answer from a Guru, no one will be able to read it. :D

    – Archemar
    Aug 1 at 14:50











  • I take this as a nice to know. But at this stage of my journey in bash I don't want to introduce further complexity by using yet another tool.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 2 at 6:13











  • That's a nice application of jq (which I learned about only some months ago).

    – Dubu
    Aug 2 at 9:47













18














18










18









You can also tell lsblk to output in JSON format and do the filtering with jq:



$ lsblk -Jb | jq -r '..|select(.size? >= 1e11).name'
sda
sda2


Or:



$ lsblk -Jb | jq -r '..|select(.type? == "disk" and .size? >= 1e11).name'
sda


To limit to entries of type disk.



(1e11 being 100 GB. Replace with 107374182400 (or 100*1024*1024*1024) for 100 GiB. Because of rounding, lsblk itself without -b reports 100G for sizes ranging from about 99.9278 to 100.0488 GiB (for some reason))



With lsblk -OJb, lsblk reports all available information which lets you do a more fined-grained selection or output more or more relevant information.



You could also get the information directly from /sys. With zsh:



$ printf '%sn' /sys/class/block/*(e'[(($(<$REPLY/size) * 512 >= 1e11))]':t)
sda
sda2





share|improve this answer
















You can also tell lsblk to output in JSON format and do the filtering with jq:



$ lsblk -Jb | jq -r '..|select(.size? >= 1e11).name'
sda
sda2


Or:



$ lsblk -Jb | jq -r '..|select(.type? == "disk" and .size? >= 1e11).name'
sda


To limit to entries of type disk.



(1e11 being 100 GB. Replace with 107374182400 (or 100*1024*1024*1024) for 100 GiB. Because of rounding, lsblk itself without -b reports 100G for sizes ranging from about 99.9278 to 100.0488 GiB (for some reason))



With lsblk -OJb, lsblk reports all available information which lets you do a more fined-grained selection or output more or more relevant information.



You could also get the information directly from /sys. With zsh:



$ printf '%sn' /sys/class/block/*(e'[(($(<$REPLY/size) * 512 >= 1e11))]':t)
sda
sda2






share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited Aug 2 at 20:52

























answered Aug 1 at 14:32









Stéphane ChazelasStéphane Chazelas

341k59 gold badges671 silver badges1049 bronze badges




341k59 gold badges671 silver badges1049 bronze badges















  • This is a true answer from a Guru, no one will be able to read it. :D

    – Archemar
    Aug 1 at 14:50











  • I take this as a nice to know. But at this stage of my journey in bash I don't want to introduce further complexity by using yet another tool.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 2 at 6:13











  • That's a nice application of jq (which I learned about only some months ago).

    – Dubu
    Aug 2 at 9:47

















  • This is a true answer from a Guru, no one will be able to read it. :D

    – Archemar
    Aug 1 at 14:50











  • I take this as a nice to know. But at this stage of my journey in bash I don't want to introduce further complexity by using yet another tool.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 2 at 6:13











  • That's a nice application of jq (which I learned about only some months ago).

    – Dubu
    Aug 2 at 9:47
















This is a true answer from a Guru, no one will be able to read it. :D

– Archemar
Aug 1 at 14:50





This is a true answer from a Guru, no one will be able to read it. :D

– Archemar
Aug 1 at 14:50













I take this as a nice to know. But at this stage of my journey in bash I don't want to introduce further complexity by using yet another tool.

– chalybeum
Aug 2 at 6:13





I take this as a nice to know. But at this stage of my journey in bash I don't want to introduce further complexity by using yet another tool.

– chalybeum
Aug 2 at 6:13













That's a nice application of jq (which I learned about only some months ago).

– Dubu
Aug 2 at 9:47





That's a nice application of jq (which I learned about only some months ago).

– Dubu
Aug 2 at 9:47











6


















try



lsblk| awk '$4 ~ /G$/ && $4+0 > 100 print $1'


this will grep and filter at same time.




  • $4 ~ /G$/ get filed with size in G


  • $4+0 > 100 get size over 100G


  • print $1 print NAME

as a rule you should never need to use grep and awk in same pipe.



to get only disk (and no partition) : awk filtering



lsblk| awk '$4 ~ /G$/ && $4+0 > 100 && $6 == "disk" print $1'


where




  • $6 == "disk" select only column with disk

to get only disk (and no partition) : lsblk filtering



lsblk --nodeps| awk '$4 ~ /G$/ && $4+0 > 100 print $1'


where




  • --nodeps : -d, --nodeps don't print slaves or holders





share|improve this answer




























  • Almost there. It still prints partitions. But I think I can get behind that when I have a bit free time.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 1 at 10:34






  • 1





    @chalybeum I fixed that, same filtering trick can be applied to muru's answer.

    – Archemar
    Aug 1 at 12:36











  • (Though I'd probably use the --no-deps option, in keeping with the general style of that answer)

    – muru
    Aug 1 at 13:00






  • 2





    I'm afraid this will fail to catch disks whose size is shown in terabytes (or bigger units).

    – fra-san
    Aug 1 at 15:11











  • @fra-san fair point and is also true for my original solution. So I'm taking the disk filter bit from here and put it in the byte conversion.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 2 at 6:10















6


















try



lsblk| awk '$4 ~ /G$/ && $4+0 > 100 print $1'


this will grep and filter at same time.




  • $4 ~ /G$/ get filed with size in G


  • $4+0 > 100 get size over 100G


  • print $1 print NAME

as a rule you should never need to use grep and awk in same pipe.



to get only disk (and no partition) : awk filtering



lsblk| awk '$4 ~ /G$/ && $4+0 > 100 && $6 == "disk" print $1'


where




  • $6 == "disk" select only column with disk

to get only disk (and no partition) : lsblk filtering



lsblk --nodeps| awk '$4 ~ /G$/ && $4+0 > 100 print $1'


where




  • --nodeps : -d, --nodeps don't print slaves or holders





share|improve this answer




























  • Almost there. It still prints partitions. But I think I can get behind that when I have a bit free time.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 1 at 10:34






  • 1





    @chalybeum I fixed that, same filtering trick can be applied to muru's answer.

    – Archemar
    Aug 1 at 12:36











  • (Though I'd probably use the --no-deps option, in keeping with the general style of that answer)

    – muru
    Aug 1 at 13:00






  • 2





    I'm afraid this will fail to catch disks whose size is shown in terabytes (or bigger units).

    – fra-san
    Aug 1 at 15:11











  • @fra-san fair point and is also true for my original solution. So I'm taking the disk filter bit from here and put it in the byte conversion.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 2 at 6:10













6














6










6









try



lsblk| awk '$4 ~ /G$/ && $4+0 > 100 print $1'


this will grep and filter at same time.




  • $4 ~ /G$/ get filed with size in G


  • $4+0 > 100 get size over 100G


  • print $1 print NAME

as a rule you should never need to use grep and awk in same pipe.



to get only disk (and no partition) : awk filtering



lsblk| awk '$4 ~ /G$/ && $4+0 > 100 && $6 == "disk" print $1'


where




  • $6 == "disk" select only column with disk

to get only disk (and no partition) : lsblk filtering



lsblk --nodeps| awk '$4 ~ /G$/ && $4+0 > 100 print $1'


where




  • --nodeps : -d, --nodeps don't print slaves or holders





share|improve this answer
















try



lsblk| awk '$4 ~ /G$/ && $4+0 > 100 print $1'


this will grep and filter at same time.




  • $4 ~ /G$/ get filed with size in G


  • $4+0 > 100 get size over 100G


  • print $1 print NAME

as a rule you should never need to use grep and awk in same pipe.



to get only disk (and no partition) : awk filtering



lsblk| awk '$4 ~ /G$/ && $4+0 > 100 && $6 == "disk" print $1'


where




  • $6 == "disk" select only column with disk

to get only disk (and no partition) : lsblk filtering



lsblk --nodeps| awk '$4 ~ /G$/ && $4+0 > 100 print $1'


where




  • --nodeps : -d, --nodeps don't print slaves or holders






share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited Aug 1 at 13:15

























answered Aug 1 at 10:19









ArchemarArchemar

21.8k9 gold badges42 silver badges78 bronze badges




21.8k9 gold badges42 silver badges78 bronze badges















  • Almost there. It still prints partitions. But I think I can get behind that when I have a bit free time.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 1 at 10:34






  • 1





    @chalybeum I fixed that, same filtering trick can be applied to muru's answer.

    – Archemar
    Aug 1 at 12:36











  • (Though I'd probably use the --no-deps option, in keeping with the general style of that answer)

    – muru
    Aug 1 at 13:00






  • 2





    I'm afraid this will fail to catch disks whose size is shown in terabytes (or bigger units).

    – fra-san
    Aug 1 at 15:11











  • @fra-san fair point and is also true for my original solution. So I'm taking the disk filter bit from here and put it in the byte conversion.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 2 at 6:10

















  • Almost there. It still prints partitions. But I think I can get behind that when I have a bit free time.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 1 at 10:34






  • 1





    @chalybeum I fixed that, same filtering trick can be applied to muru's answer.

    – Archemar
    Aug 1 at 12:36











  • (Though I'd probably use the --no-deps option, in keeping with the general style of that answer)

    – muru
    Aug 1 at 13:00






  • 2





    I'm afraid this will fail to catch disks whose size is shown in terabytes (or bigger units).

    – fra-san
    Aug 1 at 15:11











  • @fra-san fair point and is also true for my original solution. So I'm taking the disk filter bit from here and put it in the byte conversion.

    – chalybeum
    Aug 2 at 6:10
















Almost there. It still prints partitions. But I think I can get behind that when I have a bit free time.

– chalybeum
Aug 1 at 10:34





Almost there. It still prints partitions. But I think I can get behind that when I have a bit free time.

– chalybeum
Aug 1 at 10:34




1




1





@chalybeum I fixed that, same filtering trick can be applied to muru's answer.

– Archemar
Aug 1 at 12:36





@chalybeum I fixed that, same filtering trick can be applied to muru's answer.

– Archemar
Aug 1 at 12:36













(Though I'd probably use the --no-deps option, in keeping with the general style of that answer)

– muru
Aug 1 at 13:00





(Though I'd probably use the --no-deps option, in keeping with the general style of that answer)

– muru
Aug 1 at 13:00




2




2





I'm afraid this will fail to catch disks whose size is shown in terabytes (or bigger units).

– fra-san
Aug 1 at 15:11





I'm afraid this will fail to catch disks whose size is shown in terabytes (or bigger units).

– fra-san
Aug 1 at 15:11













@fra-san fair point and is also true for my original solution. So I'm taking the disk filter bit from here and put it in the byte conversion.

– chalybeum
Aug 2 at 6:10





@fra-san fair point and is also true for my original solution. So I'm taking the disk filter bit from here and put it in the byte conversion.

– chalybeum
Aug 2 at 6:10


















draft saved

draft discarded















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f533331%2fcan-i-shorten-this-filter-that-finds-disk-sizes-over-100g%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown









Popular posts from this blog

Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?