Use pv with find -exec












1















I use the following command to verify ~700 GiB of backed-up files:



$ find -type f -exec md5sum {} + | sort > ~/checksums


This takes many hours, so I would like to integrate pv into the command to show the progress.



I could do this:



$ find -type f -exec pv {} + | md5sum


But it concatenates all of the files, resulting in only one checksum.



So how could I include pv and still get a text file full of checksums at the end?






find checksum pv







share|improve this question





























    1















    I use the following command to verify ~700 GiB of backed-up files:



    $ find -type f -exec md5sum {} + | sort > ~/checksums


    This takes many hours, so I would like to integrate pv into the command to show the progress.



    I could do this:



    $ find -type f -exec pv {} + | md5sum


    But it concatenates all of the files, resulting in only one checksum.



    So how could I include pv and still get a text file full of checksums at the end?






    find checksum pv







    share|improve this question



























      1












      1








      1








      I use the following command to verify ~700 GiB of backed-up files:



      $ find -type f -exec md5sum {} + | sort > ~/checksums


      This takes many hours, so I would like to integrate pv into the command to show the progress.



      I could do this:



      $ find -type f -exec pv {} + | md5sum


      But it concatenates all of the files, resulting in only one checksum.



      So how could I include pv and still get a text file full of checksums at the end?






      find checksum pv







      share|improve this question
















      I use the following command to verify ~700 GiB of backed-up files:



      $ find -type f -exec md5sum {} + | sort > ~/checksums


      This takes many hours, so I would like to integrate pv into the command to show the progress.



      I could do this:



      $ find -type f -exec pv {} + | md5sum


      But it concatenates all of the files, resulting in only one checksum.



      So how could I include pv and still get a text file full of checksums at the end?






      find checksum pv




      find checksum pv






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 10 hours ago







      EmmaV

















      asked 10 hours ago









      EmmaVEmmaV

      1,1581332




      1,1581332






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4














          Your first command should not be able to run at all as you can't use a pipe in an -exec like that (this was apparently a typo in the original question).



          Instead:



          find . -type f -exec md5sum {} + | sort -o ~/checksums


          or, with pv,



          find . -type f -exec md5sum {} + | pv | sort -o ~/checksums


          In both of the above, md5sum would be called with as many pathnames as possible in batches. sort would take the output of find (which is the output of md5sum) and sort it into the given filename. The second variation additionally inserts pv between the find and the sort.



          You can't use -exec pv {} | md5sum for individual files as the pipe would need to be embedded in a in-line shell script that you call from -exec for each file. But even the correct -exec sh -c 'pv "$1" | md5sum' sh {} ; would discard the filename from the generated md5sum output, so that can't be used either. The pv utility acts like a drop-in replacement for cat.






          share|improve this answer


























          • I wrote the first command wrong. I'll change it.

            – EmmaV
            10 hours ago











          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/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 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%2f495440%2fuse-pv-with-find-exec%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          4














          Your first command should not be able to run at all as you can't use a pipe in an -exec like that (this was apparently a typo in the original question).



          Instead:



          find . -type f -exec md5sum {} + | sort -o ~/checksums


          or, with pv,



          find . -type f -exec md5sum {} + | pv | sort -o ~/checksums


          In both of the above, md5sum would be called with as many pathnames as possible in batches. sort would take the output of find (which is the output of md5sum) and sort it into the given filename. The second variation additionally inserts pv between the find and the sort.



          You can't use -exec pv {} | md5sum for individual files as the pipe would need to be embedded in a in-line shell script that you call from -exec for each file. But even the correct -exec sh -c 'pv "$1" | md5sum' sh {} ; would discard the filename from the generated md5sum output, so that can't be used either. The pv utility acts like a drop-in replacement for cat.






          share|improve this answer


























          • I wrote the first command wrong. I'll change it.

            – EmmaV
            10 hours ago
















          4














          Your first command should not be able to run at all as you can't use a pipe in an -exec like that (this was apparently a typo in the original question).



          Instead:



          find . -type f -exec md5sum {} + | sort -o ~/checksums


          or, with pv,



          find . -type f -exec md5sum {} + | pv | sort -o ~/checksums


          In both of the above, md5sum would be called with as many pathnames as possible in batches. sort would take the output of find (which is the output of md5sum) and sort it into the given filename. The second variation additionally inserts pv between the find and the sort.



          You can't use -exec pv {} | md5sum for individual files as the pipe would need to be embedded in a in-line shell script that you call from -exec for each file. But even the correct -exec sh -c 'pv "$1" | md5sum' sh {} ; would discard the filename from the generated md5sum output, so that can't be used either. The pv utility acts like a drop-in replacement for cat.






          share|improve this answer


























          • I wrote the first command wrong. I'll change it.

            – EmmaV
            10 hours ago














          4












          4








          4







          Your first command should not be able to run at all as you can't use a pipe in an -exec like that (this was apparently a typo in the original question).



          Instead:



          find . -type f -exec md5sum {} + | sort -o ~/checksums


          or, with pv,



          find . -type f -exec md5sum {} + | pv | sort -o ~/checksums


          In both of the above, md5sum would be called with as many pathnames as possible in batches. sort would take the output of find (which is the output of md5sum) and sort it into the given filename. The second variation additionally inserts pv between the find and the sort.



          You can't use -exec pv {} | md5sum for individual files as the pipe would need to be embedded in a in-line shell script that you call from -exec for each file. But even the correct -exec sh -c 'pv "$1" | md5sum' sh {} ; would discard the filename from the generated md5sum output, so that can't be used either. The pv utility acts like a drop-in replacement for cat.






          share|improve this answer















          Your first command should not be able to run at all as you can't use a pipe in an -exec like that (this was apparently a typo in the original question).



          Instead:



          find . -type f -exec md5sum {} + | sort -o ~/checksums


          or, with pv,



          find . -type f -exec md5sum {} + | pv | sort -o ~/checksums


          In both of the above, md5sum would be called with as many pathnames as possible in batches. sort would take the output of find (which is the output of md5sum) and sort it into the given filename. The second variation additionally inserts pv between the find and the sort.



          You can't use -exec pv {} | md5sum for individual files as the pipe would need to be embedded in a in-line shell script that you call from -exec for each file. But even the correct -exec sh -c 'pv "$1" | md5sum' sh {} ; would discard the filename from the generated md5sum output, so that can't be used either. The pv utility acts like a drop-in replacement for cat.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 10 hours ago

























          answered 10 hours ago









          KusalanandaKusalananda

          125k16236389




          125k16236389













          • I wrote the first command wrong. I'll change it.

            – EmmaV
            10 hours ago



















          • I wrote the first command wrong. I'll change it.

            – EmmaV
            10 hours ago

















          I wrote the first command wrong. I'll change it.

          – EmmaV
          10 hours ago





          I wrote the first command wrong. I'll change it.

          – EmmaV
          10 hours ago


















          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%2f495440%2fuse-pv-with-find-exec%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

          SQL Server 17 - Attemping to backup to remote NAS but Access is denied

          Image
          .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 0 I was attemping to use Ola Hallengrens scripts to backup to a remote NAS, but it was failing and not giving any direct errors, so I tried doing it manually using Server Management Studio and got the following error: TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio Failed to retrieve data for this request. (Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Sdk.Sfc) For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft%20SQL%20Server&LinkId=20476 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: An exception occurred while executing a Transact-SQL statement or batch. (Microsoft.SqlServer.ConnectionInfo) The operating system returned the error '0x80070005(Access is denied.)&#
          Read more

          Always On Availability groups resolving state after failover - Remote harden of transaction...

          Image
          0 My explanation will be opinion based as it is based on my findings. If more information is needed, I am always happy to add it. The setup We have 4 SQL Server 2016 Instances, and all 4 underlying servers are in a WSFC (In my eyes a strange setup since Always On AG's are 2 by 2. But that is a different question.) 4 nodes + Fileshare witness Version: 13.0.5026.0 (all nodes) The instances that are having the failover issues are instances 1 & 2. They have 3 AG's between them. AG1 is primary on instance 1 and is having the issue. AG2 and AG3 are primary on instance 2. Instances 3 and 4 have their own separate AG's (2). AG1's settings The week before Last week, after checking for long running queries (none) and the synchronization state (green accross the board) we initiated a
          Read more

          Restoring from pg_dump with foreign key constraints

          Image
          5 2 In restoring a database from a pg_dump , a number of errors are being generated and the whole table is subsequently being ignored. An example: ERROR: insert or update on table "channelproducts" violates foreign key constraint "fk_rails_dfaae373a5" DETAIL: Key (channel_id)=(1) is not present in table "channels". Interestingly enough, I've noted that all these instances are popping up because of the sequence of loading. channels is after channelproducts both alphabetically and in the file and thus I can understand why postgres complains about having to create a child without a parent. caveat: the foreign key is being generated automatically by rails 4.2: I could remove the problem at the source but that still does not really solve the problem... version: PostgreSQL
          Read more