Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!think.com!barmar From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: Where has all my disk space gone? Message-ID: <1991Apr25.062508.16413@Think.COM> Date: 25 Apr 91 06:25:08 GMT References: <1991Apr23.174228.11278@aucs.AcadiaU.ca> <1991Apr23.194511.29646@Think.COM> Sender: news@Think.COM Distribution: na Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Lines: 29 In article subbarao@phoenix (Kartik Subbarao) writes: >In article <1991Apr23.194511.29646@Think.COM> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: >>In article <1991Apr23.174228.11278@aucs.AcadiaU.ca> peter@aucs.acadiau.ca (Peter Steele) writes: >>>df reports the following: >>> >>>Filesystem Type kbytes use avail %use Mounted on >>>/dev/dsk/ipc1d2s3 ffs 945670 589136 356534 62% /u2 >>>du does not seem to agree with df: >>>994268 /u2 >Yes, but also note that du reports in terms of Kbytes, not blocks, so there >is no 400 meg discrepancy. I think you're wrong. If du's number is Kbytes, then it claims that /u2 is taking up 50MB *more* than the total size of the file system, even though df claims that 356MB is still available. Du and df are almost consistent if du's output is in in 512Kb blocks. > Note that directories take up space on the disk, >as does creating the file system itself. Du includes directories in its totals. File system overhead is only a few blocks, so shouldn't be significant to this problem. I'm not sure, but I think the total size reported by df may be *after* the overhead is taken into account. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar