roode@hydra.cf.uci.edu (Dana Roode) (08/23/89)
We have a DN10000 running SR10.0 and a DN3500 running SR10.1. Why does a file occupying 992 blocks (according to ls -s) on the DN1000 take only 247 blocks (also according to ls -s) when copied to the DN3500? Dana Roode UCI
krowitz@RICHTER.MIT.EDU (David Krowitz) (08/23/89)
Hard to say why, but ... what does ls -l say the sizes are? If the sizes reported by ls -l match, and the number of blocks used reported by ls -s is less than you would expect given the size, then I would guess that the file is probably being stored as a "sparse" file. I don't have a lot of info on these files offhand, but when we write a data file that has a lot of zeros in it the file system seems to be able to compact the file quite a bit. Try doing a diff on the two files. If they come out the same, my guess would be that the file system compacted the file when it copied it. -- David Krowitz krowitz@richter.mit.edu (18.83.0.109) krowitz%richter@eddie.mit.edu krowitz%richter@athena.mit.edu krowitz%richter.mit.edu@mitvma.bitnet (in order of decreasing preference)
zeleznik%cs.utah.edu@wasatch.utah.edu (Mike Zeleznik) (08/24/89)
In article <2535@orion.cf.uci.edu> roode@hydra.cf.uci.edu (Dana Roode) writes: >We have a DN10000 running SR10.0 and a DN3500 running SR10.1. Why does a >file occupying 992 blocks (according to ls -s) on the DN1000 take only >247 blocks (also according to ls -s) when copied to the DN3500? > > Dana Roode > UCI Our 10K bsd4.3 du returns 4X the space that either /com/lst or /com/ld -a (and adding them up) do. I think ls -s returns the same as du (4X). I was told this was a problem in 10.0, but was fixed in 10.1, but we have 10.1 and still see it. Our 10.1 is dated May 8, 1989 (bldt). The version of du (from ts) which works CORRECTLY (our local office has it) seems to be Feb 6 1989, 14:00:33. The version WE have is something like 10/5/88. Mike Michael Zeleznik Computer Science Dept. University of Utah zeleznik@cs.utah.edu Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 581-5617
stealth@caen.engin.umich.edu (Mike Peltier) (08/27/89)
In article <2535@orion.cf.uci.edu> roode@hydra.cf.uci.edu (Dana Roode) writes: >We have a DN10000 running SR10.0 and a DN3500 running SR10.1. Why does a >file occupying 992 blocks (according to ls -s) on the DN1000 take only >247 blocks (also according to ls -s) when copied to the DN3500? > > Dana Roode > UCI The manual page for 'ls' indicates that the -s option prints the size of the file in kilobytes. A file containing "This is a test." showed up as " 16 -rw-r--r--" on our DN10k, but as " 1 -rw-r--r--" on a DN3.5k. I think I recall this having something to do with bigger block sizes on the 10k -- 16kbyte blocks rather than 1kbyte blocks? That would be the natural conclusion given the above information... - - - - - - - - - Michael V. Peltier | Computer Aided Engineering Network 1420 King George Blvd. | University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6924 | stealth@caen.engin.umich.edu -- - - - - - - - - - Michael V. Peltier | Computer Aided Engineering Network 1420 King George Blvd. | University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6924 | stealth@caen.engin.umich.edu