Re: [sleuthkit-developers] Re: [sleuthkit-users] Split Image Question
Brought to you by:
carrier
From: Seth A. <sa...@im...> - 2005-02-02 21:41:26
|
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 11:38:23AM -0500, Brian Carrier wrote: > >1. I feel that there should be a maximum command line size, but=20 > >cannot seem to find one. I just ran some tests that had over 60KB of=20 > >data in arguments (390 file names each over 160 bytes long) and there=20 > >were no problems. This was on OS X, so I'm not sure if other OSes are= =20 > >different. Anyone know? >=20 > Actually, I guess this should be shell dependent and not OS dependent. = =20 > I am using: I don't expect any shells would implement the limit on their own. Some experiementation shows that it is around 128k on my SuSE 9.2 system with a 2.6 kernel and on my Debian 3.0 system with a 2.2 kernel. (The exact limit varies based on the environment as well as command line arguments.) I've heard that some Unix systems have limits of one megabyte! Others (such as an old SCO 3.2.4.2 system I used to use) have much lower limits, perhaps 8k or 16k or so.. I've since reclaimed those brain cells. For 'numbered files' support, I've found that there are -two- popular ways to show lists: foo.1 foo.2 foo.3 ... foo.10 foo.11 ... and foo.001 foo.002 ... foo.010 ... I've found that the first style can be easily handled with seq(1): for f in `seq 1 100` ; do echo foo.${f} ; done The second style is only slightly harder: for f in `seq 1 100` ; do F=3D`printf %03d $f` ; echo foo.${F} ; done Analogues in perl are left as an exercise for the reader. :) |