Silly question regarding "du" and "df".

[Michael T. Richter]

On Fri, 2007-26-01 at 11:10 +0100, Carsten Aulbert wrote:

> > So why do "du" and "df" report different amounts used?  And why do the
> > numbers reported by "df" not add up?  (And why does System
> > Monitor->Devices report for that drive a size of 73.4GB instead of 79
> > but reports the same amount used as "df"?)  Is this a case of the man
> > with two watches never knowing what time it is?



> I guess you fell into the trap of 1000 Bytes per 1 kByte and 1024 Bytes
> per 1 kByte.



> Try 'du -sch --si *' and the numebrs may be different again.


Both my du and df command lines are aliased to be du --si and df --si
respectively.  And the 1000 vs. 1024 thing doesn't explain why the
numbers from one command alone (df) don't add up.

-- 
Michael T. Richter
Email: ttmrichter at gmail.com, mtr1966 at hotpop.com
MSN: ttmrichter at hotmail.com, mtr1966 at hotmail.com; YIM:
michael_richter_1966; AIM: YanJiahua1966; ICQ: 241960658; Jabber:
mtr1966 at jabber.cn

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not
either to save or to destroy slavery." --Abraham Lincoln
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20070126/c9909e10/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20070126/c9909e10/attachment.sig>