Sizes reported by Disk Usage Analyzer (baobab), du, df, and (c)fdisk, revisited

Mario Vukelic mario.vukelic at
Mon May 19 21:03:48 UTC 2008

On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 20:58 +0100, Aaron wrote:
> Could it be that your 'lost+found' folders that are only accessible by 
> root have some files in from bad shut downs?

That was not it, but you brought me on the right track. Because, the
"unreadable" files of course are owned by root. It's a backup after

Further investigation, though, shows that it is in fact neither baobab,
not the other tools are correct!!!

I was confused and forgotten that I had recently excluded my videos from
backup, and that these account for 161 GB that now are on HD300, but not
on HD320-backup. I also had purged outdated files from the last 6 months
from the rdiff-backup storage.

Therefore, the expected usage on HD320-backup is nearly impossible to
determine, but the total for all top level folders in Nautilus is 37 GB,
which is reasonable if we accept that usage of 194 GB is correct for
HD300 (which seems ok).

BTW, I forgot to add this earlier: fsck on both disks is clean. They
might have been uncleanly unmounted once or twice, but in general are
well-cared for.

To recapitulate:

Capacity, expected (GiB)   279
Capacity, other tools      275-276
Capacity, baobab           194

Used, expected (GiB)       194
Used, other tools          194-208
Used, baobab               174

HD320-backup (rdiff-backup structure)                      
Capacity, expected (GiB)   298
Capacity, other tools      293-294
Capacity, baobab           40

Used, expected (GiB)       Probably 260
Used, Nautilus             260 for disk, 37 plus unreadable
                           content (that I can't find when
                           browsing) for the folders
Used, du and df		   258
Used, baobab               6


      * baobab is wrong both in size and in used numbers
      * There is a large discrepancy in reported usage between expected
        usage and du/df as opposed to Nautilus, even though Nautilus is
        not completely out of the ballbark

      * Baobab is confused as hell
      * The usage numbers are hilarious. Nautilus and du/df report
        similar numbers, but they do seem high even when considering
        rdiff storage, due to the 191 GB that are not backed up . 

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list