On 03/13/2018 02:21 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
> On 13/3/18 8:46 pm, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 18:25 -0700, Rick Stevens wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2018 03:37 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2018-03-13 at 07:26 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
>>>>>> 'du' with no parameters recursively lists all the subdirectories and
>>>>>> their sizes, along with the grand total. When applied to my home
>>>>>> directory, I get over 30,000 lines of output. That's almost never
>>>>>> I want. My usual call is 'du -hs'.
>>>>> Thanks Patrick, taking this a step further, it seems to me that the
>>>>> parameter for du that, to me, provides the correct file size is -b as
>>>>> shown below.
>>>> I think you have a misconception here. 'du' does not give file sizes,
>>>> it gives disk usage. A 1-byte file takes up at least 1 disk block, so
>>>> that's the size 'du' will give. I seem to remember that it also counts
>>>> indirect blocks and other housekeeping that corresponds to the file
>>>> without being included in the file's content, but I could be mistaken
>>>> (though I'm fairly sure early versions did do that).
>>> du (with no flags) gives disk usage. As Patrick says, a 1-byte file
>>> uses one disk block (which is generally 4KiB) and that's what du is
>>> reporting (after all, "du" means "disk usage"). The "-b" flag means
>>> "set the block size to 1 byte and show the apparent size", which is what
>>> "ls -l" would report (there may be differences between du and ls if
>>> sparse files are involved).
>> Good point about sparse files, which I'd forgotten in this context. A
>> sparse file can be 10TB in size yet occupy only 1 disk block. 'du' will
>> give the usage as 1 block and 'ls' will say it's 10TB.
>>> Also, du walks down the entire current directory unless you give it
>>> arguments to tell it what to look at. Note that the arguments you pass
>>> it are interpreted by the _shell_, not "du" (even the man page says
>>> "PATTERN is a shell pattern (not a regular expression)").
>>> This is a common confusion point with many people. Unless you enclose
>>> shell metacharacters in quotes (and dots and splats are metacharacters),
>>> the shell WILL interpret them--sometimes in ways you aren't expecting!
>>> By default, shell globbing does NOT expand filenames that start with a
>>> dot (to the shell, a dot means "current directory").
>> Slight nit: '.' (on its own) means 'current directory' to the kernel,
>> not to the Shell, i.e. it's wired into the system and doesn't depend on
>> the command interpreter (in the same way that '/' is the path separator
>> and cannot be changed). The use of dot-files as a way of hiding certain
>> names is IIRC originally just a convention of 'ls' which the Shell
>> adopted for consistency.
> Thanks guys, I fully understood the -b parameter was giving an apparent
> size of the file (which approximately matches what ls -l provides), that
> sparse files can impact the apparent size, and that the physical size of
> a file is governed by the sector size, but my usage of du, especially
> with the -s parameter, is the amount of "apparent" space occupied by
> files and directories (where possible I usually use a sector size of
> 512) to identify space hogs. I'm also fully aware of the sector size
> trade off between efficient space utilization and efficient I/O and the
> apparent space used by files.
> What I hadn't realized until Patrick mentioned it, was the significance
> of the * in the path specification. I hadn't realized that with using
> the * not only did it cause files prefixed with a '.' to be ignored but
> it also causes directories prefixed with a '.' to be ignored also.
No. What you have to get straight is that when you use "*", you're
asking the shell to create a list of files and return it, and by default
the shell doesn't list files starting with a dot.
To clarify, assume you have a directory containing the files "file1",
"file2", "file3" and ".dotfile". If you "cd" to it and do an "ls *"
(asking the shell to expand the glob), you'll get a list of "file1",
"file2" and "file3". The same is true if the command was "du" and not
"ls". So the command:
du -a *
is exactly equivalent to:
du -a file1 file2 file3
If you simply do:
then du will walk down the _directory_ you're in and display all of the
files, including ".dotfile", since du does not ignore files starting
with a dot.
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- Admitting you have a problem is the first step toward getting -
- medicated for it. -- Jim Evarts (http://www.TopFive.com) -
users mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org