List files bigger than filesize specified

Question

How can I make ls (or any other command) list only files bigger than a specific file size?

score 185 · Accepted Answer · edited Mar 11 '13 at 02:12

185

Use find and its -size flag.

To find files larger than 100MB:

find . -type f -size +100M

If you want the current dir only:

find . -maxdepth 1 -type f -size +100M

edited Mar 11 '13 at 02:12

Drew Noakes

answered Jan 15 '11 at 15:11

Nifle

3

If you need to pass the size in bytes, use `find . -type f -size +4096c ` (https://superuser.com/a/204571/111289) – ᴍᴇʜᴏᴠ Aug 08 '17 at 09:19
just to extend the answer: to get the number of files bigger than specified, pipe it to word count `find . -maxdepth 1 -type f -size +100M | wc` – B.Kocis Nov 09 '20 at 12:55

score 41 · Answer 2 · answered May 21 '14 at 17:30

41

If you wish to see all files over 100M and to see where they are and what is their size try this:

find . -type f -size +100M -exec ls -lh {} \;

answered May 21 '14 at 17:30

Ofir Zvik

1

I think it would be easier to use printf parameter `-printf "%p %s"`. See: http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?find – Nux Nov 12 '14 at 13:53
@Nux: nice tip. `-printf '%9s %p\n'` worked well for me. – seanf May 29 '15 at 05:40
Building on this answer: `find /var/lib/docker/containers -name "*-json.log" -type f -size +100M -exec /bin/cp -f /dev/null {} \;` – Richard Feb 12 '20 at 20:09
@Nux The problem with using `%s` is that while the size it prints is machine parsable, it's not human-readable, whereas `ls -lh` shows a human readable size. – Asclepius Nov 19 '20 at 21:28

score 4 · Answer 3 · edited Feb 28 '17 at 07:36

4

Use the following:

find / -size gt 2MB

or:

find / -size => 2000000

edited Feb 28 '17 at 07:36

answered Feb 27 '17 at 07:23

Farhan Ahmed

5

How does this improve the accepted answer? – Dave M Feb 27 '17 at 13:18
1

Though we thank you for your answer, it would be better if it provided additional value on top of the other answers. In this case, your answer does not provide additional value, since another user already posted that solution. If a previous answer was helpful to you, you should vote it up instead of repeating the same information. – Toby Speight Feb 27 '17 at 13:42
Alternative syntax is sometimes useful and insightful. +1 – stupidstudent Dec 05 '22 at 11:13

3 Answers3