-h will always be different from the actual disk usage, you might also want to play around with -B option too. Honestly though, NFS has never been particularly good with stuff like this. What happens when you use --apparent-size option. --apparent-size print apparent sizes, rather than disk usage; although the apparent size is usually smaller, it may be larger due to holes in ('sparse') files, internal fragmentation, indirect blocks, and the like On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Mike Miller <mbmiller+l at gmail.com> wrote: > I thought this issue was caused by a bug in the GNU du code, and I'm still > not sure that it isn't, but it might be caused by bugs in file systems or > NFS. I'm using this version of du: > > $ du --version > du (GNU coreutils) 8.4 > Copyright (C) 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > I'm using one of the MSI supercomputers. The /project/guanwh directory is > NFS mounted. Here's the kind of thing I'm seeing: > > $ du -sh /project/guanwh/miller/CHoP/intensity/ > 41G /project/guanwh/miller/CHoP/intensity/ > > $ du -sm /project/guanwh/miller/CHoP/intensity/ > 41171 /project/guanwh/miller/CHoP/intensity/ > > $ du -sb /project/guanwh/miller/CHoP/intensity/ > 65435522887 /project/guanwh/miller/CHoP/intensity/ > > $ du -sm /project/guanwh/miller/CHoP/intensity/ > 41299 /project/guanwh/miller/CHoP/intensity/ > > $ du -sh /project/guanwh/miller/CHoP/intensity/ > 41G /project/guanwh/miller/CHoP/intensity/ > > Those commands were run seconds apart while a file transfer was increasing > the amount of disk used. > > What you are seeing is that the result with -b (bytes) is correct, or at > least nearly so, while the results with -m and -h are off by many > gigabytes. I am in the process of transferring files into that directory, > but I don't see why options -m, -h and -b should give wildly different > numbers! > > I'm wondering if the problem I'm having has to do with NFS mounting. There > is a known issue: > > https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/du-invocation.html > > "On BSD systems, du reports sizes that are half the correct values for > files that are NFS-mounted from HP-UX systems. On HP-UX systems, it reports > sizes that are twice the correct values for files that are NFS-mounted from > BSD systems. This is due to a flaw in HP-UX; it also affects the HP-UX du > program." > > I am seeing usage with -sb that is 50% larger than that with -sB KB (or > -sB MB or -sB GB). > > For me, the message is to use -sb instead of -sh. The latter gives a nice > compact result, but it is probably reading numbers of file blocks and those > can have different meanings and cause different results. > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > -- Ben Lutgens Linux / Unix System Administrator Three of your friends throw up after eating chicken salad. Do you think: "I should find more robust friends" or "we should check that refrigerator"? -- Donald Becker, on vortex-bug, suspecting a network-wide problem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20140401/cbb9d4aa/attachment.html>