Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!rice!rice!sun-spots-request
From: falk@peregrine.eng.sun.com (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun
Subject: Re: ls and ls -l disagree
Keywords: Miscellaneous
Message-ID: <1990Aug15.235306.6967@rice.edu>
Date: 15 Aug 90 02:36:03 GMT
Sender: sun-spots-request@rice.edu
Organization: Sun-Spots
Lines: 26
Approved: Sun-Spots@rice.edu
Originator: spots@titan.rice.edu
X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 304, message 11
X-Refs:  Original: v9n304

In article <1990Aug14.232737.16902@rice.edu> gbarker@mph.sm.ucl.ac.uk (Dr Gareth J. Barker) writes:

>Can anyone explain the following discrepancy between the output of ls and
>ls -l on an NFS mounted file system with client and server both running
>4.1?
>
>First, sitting on the mount point (/mounts/reo0) just after mounting the
>file system:
>
>titan# /bin/ls
>bev         lost+found
>titan# /bin/ls -l
>lost+found not found 
>bev not found
>total 0

Disclaimer: I'm speaking as an end-user, not as a systems guru.

I don't have any idea what the problem is, but here's a possible hint:
"ls" just needs to open the directory, "ls -l" also needs to stat every
file.

	-ed falk, sun microsystems -- sun!falk, falk@sun.com
	"What are politicians going to tell people when the
	Constitution is gone and we still have a drug problem?"
			-- William Simpson, A.C.L.U.