On 03/13/2018 04:59 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
> 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:
> du -a
> 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.
Here's an example:
[root@golem4 ~]# mkdir /tmp/testdir
[root@golem4 ~]# cd /tmp/testdir
[root@golem4 testdir]# touch file1 file2 file3 .dotfile
[root@golem4 testdir]# echo "Without shopt:";ls *;echo "With
shopt:";shopt -s dotglob;ls *;echo "Without shopt again:";shopt -u
file1 file2 file3
.dotfile file1 file2 file3
Without shopt again:
file1 file2 file3
[root@golem4 testdir]# du *
[root@golem4 testdir]# du -a *
[root@golem4 testdir]# du -a
Hope that clarifies it a bit.
And when I say "files that start with a dot", that includes directories,
devices, whatever (remember, essentially in Unixish systems,
EVERYTHING is some type of a file).
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- To err is human, to moo bovine. -
users mailing list -- email@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org