On Wednesday 28 April 2004 10:22 pm, Paul Eggert wrote: > "du" and "ls" are reporting the numbers that they are given by the > kernel. lstat64 reports st_size=1595396, which is the size "ls" is > reporting. lstat64 also reports st_blocks=2097152, which (if true) > would mean that 2,097,152*512 == 1,073,741,824 bytes are allocated for > that file; this explains why "du" claims about 1 GB is allocated. > > My guess is that your smbfs configuration is bollixed up somehow, and > this is messing up st_blocks. Perhaps it is a Samba bug, or a kernel > bug, or a bug in the remote server. It's also theoretically possible > (but I think unlikely) that your filesystem actually is allocating 1 > GB for the file, even though it's only using 1.5 MB. > > Other people have reported similar problems, e.g. see: > > Adam Sampson > Odd st_blocks values from smbfs in 2.6.0-test8 (2003-10-24) > http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/10/24/158
Thanks for having a look! _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
