Re: command "du" reports wrong size ?

[Bob Proulx]

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