Re: Possible bug in `du`

[Chris van O]

On Wednesday 28 April 2004 10:22 pm, Paul Eggert wrote:
> "du" and "ls" are reporting the numbers that they are given by the
> kernel.  lstat64 reports st_size=1595396, which is the size "ls" is
> reporting.  lstat64 also reports st_blocks=2097152, which (if true)
> would mean that 2,097,152*512 == 1,073,741,824 bytes are allocated for
> that file; this explains why "du" claims about 1 GB is allocated.
>
> My guess is that your smbfs configuration is bollixed up somehow, and
> this is messing up st_blocks.  Perhaps it is a Samba bug, or a kernel
> bug, or a bug in the remote server.  It's also theoretically possible
> (but I think unlikely) that your filesystem actually is allocating 1
> GB for the file, even though it's only using 1.5 MB.
>
> Other people have reported similar problems, e.g. see:
>
> Adam Sampson
> Odd st_blocks values from smbfs in 2.6.0-test8 (2003-10-24)
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/10/24/158

Thanks for having a look!