On Fri 02 Oct 2009, Jenny Hopkins wrote: > > Can I ask one final question? > > If our du-sh * shows > 31.7 20090705 > 0.2 20090712 [etc]
> does this mean that the directory size of 20090712 is 0.2G PLUS the > 31.7G from 20090705, then in turn the 20090719 is 1.8G PLUS the > 31.7G PLUS the 0.2G? No. >From just the information above it's entirely possible that the actual _total_ size of 20090712 could be 0.2GB; although we have more info and know that's not the case. It could be that there is a 0.2GB file that changes every time, hence that 0.2GB is only in 20090705, so the total size of 20090712 is also 31.7GB. > So that when image 20090705 is deleted, the du for 20090712 will show 31.9G? No. Maybe, but you just can't tell from the info given. The "log" file I referred to earlier gives all the necessary info... Paul _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
