> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:redhat-list- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rodolfo J. Paiz > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 7:32 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: /var/log/lastlog -- why is it 19 megabytes? > > At 8/24/2003 19:07 -0400, you wrote: > >Sorry, I'm joining this thread way after the fact. The only thing > I'll > >mention is that I *have* seen certain applications zero out a very > large > >filesize in preparation for filling up that space with a series of > >chunks. Bit-torrent is the *perfect* example of that. Say you start > to > >download a 500M ISO image. It breaks it into chunks so it can > perform > >parallel downloads from multiple clients. Even though the total > >download at any one time may only be a fraction of that size, the > file > >is reserved at its maximum size. I don't know how it does it, but it > >does. :) > > > >Does this sound like a possibility? > > Not at all... these are standard WAV files, originally ripped from the > (original, purchased) music CD. They average 45-50MB, but when I moved > them > to a second hard drive some of them started getting reported by "ls - > l" as > being roughly 20 times larger (900MB to 1.2GB). Oddly, "ls -sh" > reports > their sizes correctly, as does "du -h". > > Trying to figure out what caused this wrong listing and fix it, since > copying the file does take the whole 1.2GB. Also, I share this folder > with > Windows which reports total usage as 1.6TB instead of the actual 63GB > (25x). > > > -- > Rodolfo J. Paiz > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
This maybe absolutely correct reporting. You said that windows and linux are sharing the disk that these files are stored. Well windows reports the total byte count for the files and linux reports the number of 512 byte blocks in a file (or something to that effect), but you are storing the files on a vfat partition and linux maybe(I don't know for sure) reporting the total byte count of the file. In which case linux is reporting the actual byte count, but windows is reporting the allocated byte count hence the discrepancies between the files in a linux partition and the listing o=n the vfat partition and the differences between the linux and windows listing. I think this is what is happening. I've seen this on Unix system sharing with windows but I've never seen it with linux before. A way of resolving maybe to copy the files back from the shared disk to a linux partition and then get a listing. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
