Folder size du, ls [duplicate]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Why are there so many different ways to measure disk usage?
4 answers
Can someone explain folder size?
Folder contains only 1 file with 360Gb size. ls and du show used 440Gb
[root@liz DECSC]# ls -lha
total 440G
drwxrwxr-x 2 geo geo 4.0K Dec 6 19:56 .
drwxrwxr-x 14 geo geo 20K Dec 6 19:39 ..
-rwxrwxrwx 1 geo geo 360G Apr 8 2018 vor_gainzp2.dat
[root@liz DECSC]# du -hs
440G .
[root@liz DECSC]#
size
asked Dec 7 at 5:10
user3630995
132
marked as duplicate by Romeo Ninov, G-Man, msp9011, JigglyNaga, schily Dec 7 at 15:49
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Why are there so many different ways to measure disk usage?
4 answers
Can someone explain folder size?
Folder contains only 1 file with 360Gb size. ls and du show used 440Gb
[root@liz DECSC]# ls -lha
total 440G
drwxrwxr-x 2 geo geo 4.0K Dec 6 19:56 .
drwxrwxr-x 14 geo geo 20K Dec 6 19:39 ..
-rwxrwxrwx 1 geo geo 360G Apr 8 2018 vor_gainzp2.dat
[root@liz DECSC]# du -hs
440G .
[root@liz DECSC]#
size
asked Dec 7 at 5:10
user3630995
132
marked as duplicate by Romeo Ninov, G-Man, msp9011, JigglyNaga, schily Dec 7 at 15:49
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Why are there so many different ways to measure disk usage?
4 answers
Can someone explain folder size?
Folder contains only 1 file with 360Gb size. ls and du show used 440Gb
[root@liz DECSC]# ls -lha
total 440G
drwxrwxr-x 2 geo geo 4.0K Dec 6 19:56 .
drwxrwxr-x 14 geo geo 20K Dec 6 19:39 ..
-rwxrwxrwx 1 geo geo 360G Apr 8 2018 vor_gainzp2.dat
[root@liz DECSC]# du -hs
440G .
[root@liz DECSC]#
size
asked Dec 7 at 5:10
user3630995
132
This question already has an answer here:
Why are there so many different ways to measure disk usage?
4 answers
Can someone explain folder size?
Folder contains only 1 file with 360Gb size. ls and du show used 440Gb
[root@liz DECSC]# ls -lha
total 440G
drwxrwxr-x 2 geo geo 4.0K Dec 6 19:56 .
drwxrwxr-x 14 geo geo 20K Dec 6 19:39 ..
-rwxrwxrwx 1 geo geo 360G Apr 8 2018 vor_gainzp2.dat
[root@liz DECSC]# du -hs
440G .
[root@liz DECSC]#
This question already has an answer here:
Why are there so many different ways to measure disk usage?
4 answers
size
size
asked Dec 7 at 5:10
user3630995
132
asked Dec 7 at 5:10
user3630995
132
asked Dec 7 at 5:10
user3630995
132
asked Dec 7 at 5:10
user3630995
132
asked Dec 7 at 5:10
user3630995
132
132
marked as duplicate by Romeo Ninov, G-Man, msp9011, JigglyNaga, schily Dec 7 at 15:49
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Romeo Ninov, G-Man, msp9011, JigglyNaga, schily Dec 7 at 15:49
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
It sounds like this is on a filesystem that has direct block allocation and not extents, such as ext3.
This means that each data block has an entry in a table (in the inode). The first 12 entries are direct blocks, i.e. those directly point to data blocks. The next entry is an indirect block, which points to a block which again contains block numbers. The 13th block is a double indirect block, and the 14th block is a triple indirect block.
All this means that for large files such as your 370GB file, there are an enormous amount of blocks involved in addressing all the data blocks. This is probably where the difference comes from; du takes into account all blocks, not just data blocks. ls shows the file size, but the total space in the directory is again shown with all space used, not just the data blocks.
For larger files, I do not recommend using ext3 and certainly not ext2. Use a modern extent-based filesystem such as ext4. With an extent-based filesystem, the blocks are indexed as "the first block is at 3874 and this extends for 342 blocks", and more extents are added as necessary. In this way many blocks can be found using just two numbers. This is not only much more space-efficient, it's also a lot faster as all those extra blocks don't need to be loaded.
answered Dec 7 at 8:02
wurtel
9,79011325
There is no indication that the user is using Linux, although this is a resonable assumptions most of the time.
– Kusalananda
Dec 7 at 8:06
The user is at least using GNU coreutils as most versions oflsdon't support-hto show "human" numbers. The filesystem differences also apply to other unicen although they have different names.
– wurtel
Dec 7 at 8:10
BSDlsalso has-h, but the size of.and the spacing between columns in the output may be giveaways.
– Kusalananda
Dec 7 at 8:13
server os is CentOS. Storage is NAS (Panasas ActiveStor), and i dont know what filesystem at backend. So this size 440Gb is show real used space on storage?
– user3630995
Dec 7 at 10:29
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
It sounds like this is on a filesystem that has direct block allocation and not extents, such as ext3.
This means that each data block has an entry in a table (in the inode). The first 12 entries are direct blocks, i.e. those directly point to data blocks. The next entry is an indirect block, which points to a block which again contains block numbers. The 13th block is a double indirect block, and the 14th block is a triple indirect block.
All this means that for large files such as your 370GB file, there are an enormous amount of blocks involved in addressing all the data blocks. This is probably where the difference comes from; du takes into account all blocks, not just data blocks. ls shows the file size, but the total space in the directory is again shown with all space used, not just the data blocks.
For larger files, I do not recommend using ext3 and certainly not ext2. Use a modern extent-based filesystem such as ext4. With an extent-based filesystem, the blocks are indexed as "the first block is at 3874 and this extends for 342 blocks", and more extents are added as necessary. In this way many blocks can be found using just two numbers. This is not only much more space-efficient, it's also a lot faster as all those extra blocks don't need to be loaded.
answered Dec 7 at 8:02
wurtel
9,79011325
There is no indication that the user is using Linux, although this is a resonable assumptions most of the time.
– Kusalananda
Dec 7 at 8:06
The user is at least using GNU coreutils as most versions oflsdon't support-hto show "human" numbers. The filesystem differences also apply to other unicen although they have different names.
– wurtel
Dec 7 at 8:10
BSDlsalso has-h, but the size of.and the spacing between columns in the output may be giveaways.
– Kusalananda
Dec 7 at 8:13
server os is CentOS. Storage is NAS (Panasas ActiveStor), and i dont know what filesystem at backend. So this size 440Gb is show real used space on storage?
– user3630995
Dec 7 at 10:29
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
It sounds like this is on a filesystem that has direct block allocation and not extents, such as ext3.
This means that each data block has an entry in a table (in the inode). The first 12 entries are direct blocks, i.e. those directly point to data blocks. The next entry is an indirect block, which points to a block which again contains block numbers. The 13th block is a double indirect block, and the 14th block is a triple indirect block.
All this means that for large files such as your 370GB file, there are an enormous amount of blocks involved in addressing all the data blocks. This is probably where the difference comes from; du takes into account all blocks, not just data blocks. ls shows the file size, but the total space in the directory is again shown with all space used, not just the data blocks.
For larger files, I do not recommend using ext3 and certainly not ext2. Use a modern extent-based filesystem such as ext4. With an extent-based filesystem, the blocks are indexed as "the first block is at 3874 and this extends for 342 blocks", and more extents are added as necessary. In this way many blocks can be found using just two numbers. This is not only much more space-efficient, it's also a lot faster as all those extra blocks don't need to be loaded.
answered Dec 7 at 8:02
wurtel
9,79011325
There is no indication that the user is using Linux, although this is a resonable assumptions most of the time.
– Kusalananda
Dec 7 at 8:06
The user is at least using GNU coreutils as most versions oflsdon't support-hto show "human" numbers. The filesystem differences also apply to other unicen although they have different names.
– wurtel
Dec 7 at 8:10
BSDlsalso has-h, but the size of.and the spacing between columns in the output may be giveaways.
– Kusalananda
Dec 7 at 8:13
server os is CentOS. Storage is NAS (Panasas ActiveStor), and i dont know what filesystem at backend. So this size 440Gb is show real used space on storage?
– user3630995
Dec 7 at 10:29
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
It sounds like this is on a filesystem that has direct block allocation and not extents, such as ext3.
This means that each data block has an entry in a table (in the inode). The first 12 entries are direct blocks, i.e. those directly point to data blocks. The next entry is an indirect block, which points to a block which again contains block numbers. The 13th block is a double indirect block, and the 14th block is a triple indirect block.
All this means that for large files such as your 370GB file, there are an enormous amount of blocks involved in addressing all the data blocks. This is probably where the difference comes from; du takes into account all blocks, not just data blocks. ls shows the file size, but the total space in the directory is again shown with all space used, not just the data blocks.
For larger files, I do not recommend using ext3 and certainly not ext2. Use a modern extent-based filesystem such as ext4. With an extent-based filesystem, the blocks are indexed as "the first block is at 3874 and this extends for 342 blocks", and more extents are added as necessary. In this way many blocks can be found using just two numbers. This is not only much more space-efficient, it's also a lot faster as all those extra blocks don't need to be loaded.
answered Dec 7 at 8:02
wurtel
9,79011325
It sounds like this is on a filesystem that has direct block allocation and not extents, such as ext3.
This means that each data block has an entry in a table (in the inode). The first 12 entries are direct blocks, i.e. those directly point to data blocks. The next entry is an indirect block, which points to a block which again contains block numbers. The 13th block is a double indirect block, and the 14th block is a triple indirect block.
All this means that for large files such as your 370GB file, there are an enormous amount of blocks involved in addressing all the data blocks. This is probably where the difference comes from; du takes into account all blocks, not just data blocks. ls shows the file size, but the total space in the directory is again shown with all space used, not just the data blocks.
For larger files, I do not recommend using ext3 and certainly not ext2. Use a modern extent-based filesystem such as ext4. With an extent-based filesystem, the blocks are indexed as "the first block is at 3874 and this extends for 342 blocks", and more extents are added as necessary. In this way many blocks can be found using just two numbers. This is not only much more space-efficient, it's also a lot faster as all those extra blocks don't need to be loaded.
answered Dec 7 at 8:02
wurtel
9,79011325
answered Dec 7 at 8:02
wurtel
9,79011325
answered Dec 7 at 8:02
wurtel
9,79011325
answered Dec 7 at 8:02
wurtel
9,79011325
9,79011325
There is no indication that the user is using Linux, although this is a resonable assumptions most of the time.
– Kusalananda
Dec 7 at 8:06
The user is at least using GNU coreutils as most versions oflsdon't support-hto show "human" numbers. The filesystem differences also apply to other unicen although they have different names.
– wurtel
Dec 7 at 8:10
BSDlsalso has-h, but the size of.and the spacing between columns in the output may be giveaways.
– Kusalananda
Dec 7 at 8:13
server os is CentOS. Storage is NAS (Panasas ActiveStor), and i dont know what filesystem at backend. So this size 440Gb is show real used space on storage?
– user3630995
Dec 7 at 10:29
add a comment |
There is no indication that the user is using Linux, although this is a resonable assumptions most of the time.
– Kusalananda
Dec 7 at 8:06
The user is at least using GNU coreutils as most versions oflsdon't support-hto show "human" numbers. The filesystem differences also apply to other unicen although they have different names.
– wurtel
Dec 7 at 8:10
BSDlsalso has-h, but the size of.and the spacing between columns in the output may be giveaways.
– Kusalananda
Dec 7 at 8:13
server os is CentOS. Storage is NAS (Panasas ActiveStor), and i dont know what filesystem at backend. So this size 440Gb is show real used space on storage?
– user3630995
Dec 7 at 10:29
There is no indication that the user is using Linux, although this is a resonable assumptions most of the time.
– Kusalananda
Dec 7 at 8:06
There is no indication that the user is using Linux, although this is a resonable assumptions most of the time.
– Kusalananda
Dec 7 at 8:06
The user is at least using GNU coreutils as most versions of
ls don't support -h to show "human" numbers. The filesystem differences also apply to other unicen although they have different names.– wurtel
Dec 7 at 8:10
The user is at least using GNU coreutils as most versions of
ls don't support -h to show "human" numbers. The filesystem differences also apply to other unicen although they have different names.– wurtel
Dec 7 at 8:10
BSD
ls also has -h, but the size of . and the spacing between columns in the output may be giveaways.– Kusalananda
Dec 7 at 8:13
BSD
ls also has -h, but the size of . and the spacing between columns in the output may be giveaways.– Kusalananda
Dec 7 at 8:13
server os is CentOS. Storage is NAS (Panasas ActiveStor), and i dont know what filesystem at backend. So this size 440Gb is show real used space on storage?
– user3630995
Dec 7 at 10:29
server os is CentOS. Storage is NAS (Panasas ActiveStor), and i dont know what filesystem at backend. So this size 440Gb is show real used space on storage?
– user3630995
Dec 7 at 10:29
add a comment |