30 Dec
2005
30 Dec
'05
6:34 p.m.
Hello,
du of lastlog reports 120K size ls of lastlog reports 38M [root@c-106 root]# du
-sh /var/log/lastlog 120K /var/log/lastlog [root@c-106 root]# ls -lah
/var/log/lastlog -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 38M Dec 30 13:30 /var/log/lastlog
Why du and ls reporting differnt size of the same file?
Thanks
Regards,
Komal
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using NWebmail, BSNL's Webmail Program
31 Dec
31 Dec
1:12 a.m.
On Friday 30 December 2005 13:04, agencies_ad1(a)sancharnet.in wrote:
Hello,
du of lastlog reports 120K size ls of lastlog reports 38M [root@c-106
root]# du -sh /var/log/lastlog 120K /var/log/lastlog [root@c-106
root]# ls -lah /var/log/lastlog -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 38M Dec 30
13:30 /var/log/lastlog
Why du and ls reporting differnt size of the same file?
very interesting indeed. I checked out man du and I found a switch which
would give me the exact size as ls -lh gave.
[basix@linuxbox log]$ du -h lastlog
52K lastlog
[basix@linuxbox log]$ ls -lh lastlog
-r-------- 1 root root 19M Dec 30 18:08 lastlog
[basix@linuxbox log]$ du -h --apparent-size lastlog
19M lastlog
Here is what man had to say about the --apparent-size switch:
--apparent-size
print apparent sizes, rather than disk usage; although the
apparent size is usually smaller, it may be larger due to holes
in (‘sparse’) files, internal fragmentation, indirect blocks,
and the like.
Wikipedia didn't have anything significant to tell me either.
Experts, please clarify!
--
Dinesh A. Joshi
30 Dec
30 Dec
9:27 p.m.
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 07:42:03PM +0000, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
On Friday 30 December 2005 13:04,
agencies_ad1(a)sancharnet.in wrote:
> Hello,
> du of lastlog reports 120K size ls of lastlog reports 38M [root@c-106
> root]# du -sh /var/log/lastlog 120K /var/log/lastlog [root@c-106
> root]# ls -lah /var/log/lastlog -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 38M Dec 30
> 13:30 /var/log/lastlog
>
> Why du and ls reporting differnt size of the same file?
Experts, please clarify!
du operates on blocks. du -b gives the right size in bytes.
--
Satya. http://www.thesatya.com/
2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
7:46 a.m.
On Saturday 31 Dec 2005 5:16 am, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
duh ;-)
--
regards
kg
http://www.livejournal.com/users/lawgon
tally ho! http://avsap.org.in
ಇಂಡ್ಲಿನಕ್ಸ வாழ்க!
du operates on
blocks. du -b gives the right size in bytes.
That explains it... But why is there such a large difference
between size reported in blocks and that reported by bytes?
1:38 p.m.
Quoting Dinesh Joshi <dinesh.a.joshi(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Friday 30 December 2005 15:57, Satya wrote:
The size of the file /var/log/lastlog can appear to be overly large on some
systems, most especially in 64 bit architectures.
This file is what we call a sparse file. A sparse file is a file that contains
unallocated blocks or "empty space", as it implies, it does not actually take
up filesystem space. To test this theory, execute the following command:
du -H /var/log/lastlog
6.0MB /var/log/lastlog
Here the file is reported to be only ~6MB. This is the actual disk space the
file is taking up. The lastlog file only records data for users that have
logged in.
An important point to note when operating with sparse files is that certain
tools do have built-in functionality to deal with these types of files. For
example cp, tar and rsync. See the man page for each of those commands for
further information.
Regards,
Komal
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using NWebmail, BSNL's Webmail Program
du operates on blocks. du -b gives the right size in bytes.
That explains it... But why is there such a large difference between
size reported in blocks and that reported by bytes?
6298
days inactive
6299
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
agencies_ad1＠sancharnet.in -
Dinesh Joshi -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Satya