Hello!

>> But 126440165670 bytes == 123.476.724,287 kb == 117,757 Gb != 20G (du -sh) > 33G (df, full size of partition). :-)

> Most likely, you are not seeing a bug, but the effect of hard links and
> sparse files.
> http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/#df-and-du-report-different-information
> http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/#df-Size-and-Used-and-Available-do-not-add-up

Yes, probably you are right at the expense of sparse files, because the sum of the sizes issued utility ls close to the amount issued by a du -b. But why the du without the keys, like to du -k, du -m and du -h gives the correct size (without sparse)?



Best regards. Aureliano.





On 06/30/2010 22:03:25, "Eric Blake"  wrote:
On 06/30/2010 11:41 AM, aureliano@pochtamt.ru wrote:

Hello, and thanks for taking the time to write.

> $ du --version
> du (GNU coreutils) 7.4

Consider upgrading; the latest stable version is 8.5.  However, that is
unlikely to be related to your problem.

> 
> But 126440165670 bytes == 123.476.724,287 kb == 117,757 Gb != 20G (du -sh) > 33G (df, full size of partition). :-)

Most likely, you are not seeing a bug, but the effect of hard links and
sparse files.
http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/#df-and-du-report-different-information
http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/#df-Size-and-Used-and-Available-do-not-add-up

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake@redhat.com    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org