On Wednesday 03 January 2001 05:57 pm, bascule wrote:
> thanks tom,
> yes i have 96mb ram, it's a bit unnerving to know that file sizes can
> be lied about/misreported like that, is it just /dev/ entries that do
> this ? i know this has confused me before, i'm a gui person really
> and i need to know when to trust what konq is telling me!
You weren't being lied to <hehehe> You just happened to pick the
one device file that connects the kernel and your ram. Use konq to
check out some other devices, like hda. It will report -o- bytes.
Google 'linux devices' if you want to find out some more about how
these pretend files work. Also check out 'linux device registrar'
.... and how come you weren't curious that kong said /dev/core was 95mb
when you have 96mb of ram ? Short answer is prob'ly some hardware
you've got is grabbin 1mb to use as virtual firmware. Sort'a a
win-firmware deal ;>>>>
--
Tom Brinkman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Galveston Bay
> On Wednesday 03 January 2001 9:30 pm, you wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 January 2001 02:45 pm, bascule wrote:
> > > i have found a file named /dev/core which is approx 95mb (so it
> > > is claimed) which points to /proc/kcore also 95mb in size, this
> > > confuses me on 2 fronts, how could a symlink be 95mb in size and
> > > is this normal, /proc/...being a virtual filesystem - do i need
> > > to delete this file or not
> > >
> > > bascule
> >
> > These aren't really files. Yes, they're vitual, sometimes called
> > pretend files. My /dev/core is 256mb. That's the amount of ram I
> > have. I take it you have 96 ?
> > type 'du -ch /dev/*' (try /proc/* too) and you'll see that most
> > all the 'files' in /dev are -0- byte. The total for the whole
> > /dev directory should only be something over 100k, mostly due to
> > many 1/2k dir listings. Don't delete anything in either /dev or
> > /proc
