On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 23:13 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 12:51 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>
>>>>> BTW, it might be worth knowing what filesystem the OP is using. In
my
>>>>> case it's ext3.
>>>> FWIW, the OP is probably happy to have his problem solved. Chances are
he
>>>> is running ext3 as most people take the default.
>>>>
>>>> What would be more interesting would be to know what file system you are
>>>> running.
>>> ext3, as I already said.
>> Mis-read it. Sorry....
>>
>> I run ext3 and it acts as I've said... The output of du and df differ.
>
> There's clearly some misunderstanding here, on one side or the other, or
> both. Forget it.
At least I know exactly what is going on and the OP's issue is resolved. Sure..
I know I said "forget it", but at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd
just like to share something a friend pointed out, which explains the
OP's original problem.
"du -b" acts differently from "du", and "du -k", and
"du -m". The latter
three all give the real disk usage, which for a sparse file will be low
until the file fills up. "du -b" gives the *apparent* file size, which
can indeed be larger than the total filesystem size.
So it all comes down to RTFM ...
poc