Steven wrote: > I got a strange problem. i.e. "du" command reports wrong size in FC3/4, > dd --version > dd (coreutils) 5.2.1 > du --version > du (coreutils) 5.2.1
Thank you for your report and for including the respective version numbers and such. > [fc3]~/tmp>dd if=/dev/zero of=dd.128 bs=1M count=128 > 128+0 records in > 128+0 records out > [fc3]~/tmp>du -B 1M dd.128 > 129 dd.128 > > 129 != 128 The 'du' command reports the amount of disk blocks used. This is not quite the same thing as the size of the file. You have created a file that is of a certain size. But the filesystem may use more blocks to store it. Because you are working on differnet machines I am guessing that the filesystems are different. What is the output of this command? ls -ls dd.128 What is the type of the filesystems involved? You can use 'df -T' for this information. df -T . > However, if I use the dd and du in RedHat 9: > [rh9]~/tmp>dd --version > dd (coreutils) 4.5.3 > [rh9]~/tmp>du --version > du (coreutils) 4.5.3 > > [rh9]~/tmp>dd if=/dev/zero of=dd.128 bs=1M count=128 > 128+0 records in > 128+0 records out > [rh9]~/tmp>du -B 1M dd.128 > 128 dd.128 Same thing here. What is the output here? ls -ls dd.128 df -T . > That's correct in RH9. Is that a bug of du in the coreutils 5.2.1 ? Or > where am I wrong ? Need more information to decide. Types of filesystem and the sizes of the files. Bob _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
