On Friday 30 December 2005 13:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello, > du of lastlog reports 120K size ls of lastlog reports 38M [EMAIL PROTECTED] > root]# du -sh /var/log/lastlog 120K /var/log/lastlog [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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. [EMAIL PROTECTED] log]$ du -h lastlog 52K lastlog [EMAIL PROTECTED] log]$ ls -lh lastlog -r-------- 1 root root 19M Dec 30 18:08 lastlog [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -- http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
