[CentOS] "find" statement: 64bit related??

[Johnny Hughes]

On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:24 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> rado wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 13:02 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > > rado wrote:
> > > > hi!
> > > > 3 machines all run this same test script. 2 -i386,  1 x-64bit
> > > > machine. 
> > > > 
> > > > this line:
> > > > 
> > > > if find / -mount -type f -mtime -1 -print0 | xargs -0 clamscan -l
> > > > \ $CLAMDAILY $CLAMEXCLUDES -r --no-summary | cut -d: -f1 >
> > > > $CHANGEDLOG; \ then 
> > > > 
> > > > the $CHANGEDLOG file... on the 32 bit boxes...oh, probably 220
> > > > files. On the 64bit box 177,999 files lol (Centos 64bit
> > > > w/everything installed)! 
> > > > 
> > > > it seems to me that the system is disregarding "-mtime -1"
> > > > 
> > > > sure has me puzzled! I have rechecked all of my assigned variables
> > > > over and over in the cfg file and the syntax of the functions in
> > > > the functions file that make up the whole "team". I can find
> > > > nothing remarkable relating to the 64 box's cfg.
> > > > 
> > > > any suggestions?
> > > 
> > > It seems to work fine on my 64-bit machines.
> > > 
> > > Try running this to see what is being selected:
> > > find / -mount -type f -mtime -1 -print0 | xargs -0 ls -ld >
> > > new_files.txt 
> > > 
> > > With the 'ls -ld', you will see the modification times as well, so
> > > you can tell if it is really selecting the wrong files.
> > > 
> > yes, it really is selecting the wrong files...getting all kinds of
> > dates...
> 
> Time for the mantra of computer techs around the world:
> 
>     "Hmm...that's odd...it shouldn't do that..."
> 
> Don't know what else to tell you.  Anyone else have any ideas?
> 

How is the file system mounted in /etc/fstab

(any weird options)

What is the file system?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060113/c91654da/attachment.sig>