Subject: Re: du does not find all directories
From: [email-masked] (Ken Evans)

8 Feb 1997 12:07:01 -0800
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Original-To: [email-masked]
Original-CC: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
In-reply-to: <[email-masked]> (message from Jim Balter on Sat, 08
	Feb 1997 01: 29:26 -0800)
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

"JB" == Jim Balter <[email-masked]> writes:

 JB> Note, though, that the cluster size has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do
 JB> with the numbers reported by ls and du; under cygwin, they report
 JB> strictly based upon the file size, but they report half as many
 JB> blocks as they should.  The fact that they don't know about
 JB> clusters makes them not very useful, even if they did report the
 JB> right numbers; if you have 1000 100 byte files on a 512M
 JB> partition, you are actually using 15.6M, but a "working" du would
 JB> think you are only using 500K.  Now you know where your disk
 JB> space is going!  If a 32:1 disk space usage for small files isn't
 JB> what you had in mind, consider switching to NTFS (or FAT32 if you
 JB> have it).  There's even a freeware NTFS redirector that you can
 JB> run under Windows 95, though I haven't tried it and don't know
 JB> how reliable it is (it was created by reverse engineering NTFS,
 JB> the precise details of which seems to be on of those MS
 JB> "secrets", though there is a pointer to the redirector on one of
 JB> MS' own pages).

     My experience is that du reports in 2K blocks (based on
comparison to ls and DOS dir), independently of -k.  The number that
appears seems to be half the number of kB.  (Whether this is half as
many as it "should" report depends on what you think it "should"
report.  The versions of du I use on Unix default to 512K blocks.)

     MORE IMPORTANTLY, du is not reporting all my directories.  I get:

du:        333347 -> 682,694,656 Bytes

scandisk:             36,503,552 in 1,111 folders
                      17,760,256 in 225 hidden files
                   1,836,875,776 in 25,348 user files
                     255,328,256 available
                   2,146,467,840 total
                          32,768 in each allocation unit
                          65,505 allocation units

tape backup:       1,210,603,864 (last time, approx. same files as now)

   The discrepancy between the tape backup number and scandisk is
apparently the wasted space owing to allocation by cluster as
mentioned above.  Nevertheless, du is reporting roughly half as much
as the tape backup.  Even if you want to argue that the tape backup
software is wrong, the du output clearly does not include all of the
directories on the drive.  It is missing whole directories.

    Hope this quantifies at least my own situation.  Thanks for the
interest,

	-Ken

-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".