On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:53:22 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
>> So it is "du" that is fooling me? Very interesting
>
> Right, "du" counts a multiply linked file only the first time it is
> seen.
It's actually fairly nice once you get used to it. I use --link-dest for
backups too, and this lets me
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 05:22 -0700, Janne H wrote:
> Here are the results that you asked for
>
> du -s /tmp/full_20110329_122743 /tmp/20110329_125251
> 18272 /tmp/full_20110329_122743
> 532 /tmp/20110329_125251
>
> du -s /tmp/20110329_125251 /tmp/full_20110329_122743
> 18272 /tmp/20110329_
/full_20110329_122743
18272 /tmp/full_20110329_122743
du -s /tmp/20110329_125251
18272 /tmp/20110329_125251
So it is "du" that is fooling me? Very interesting
--- On Tue, 3/29/11, Tony Abernethy wrote:
> From: Tony Abernethy
> Subject: RE: weird result when using --link-dest
> To:
Thanks for the detail.
Try
du -s /tmp/full_20110329_122743 /tmp/20110329_122743
du -s /tmp/20110329_122743 /tmp/full_20110329_122743
du -s /tmp/full_20110329_122743
du -s /tmp/20110329_122743
Technically, the directories have entries which point to the inodes which are
in fact the files.
When yo