Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:52:48 -0700 From: David Brodbeck <gull@gull.us> To: Peter Vereshagin <peter@vereshagin.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: `ls -l` shows size of file other than of the folder? Message-ID: <CAHhngE1pFZWjgGCU0moVBrKQwA9uaR984uXSg1_GnGAjCL7jnQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120614193758.GA6419@external.screwed.box> References: <20120613202325.GC5800@external.screwed.box> <20120614193758.GA6419@external.screwed.box>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Peter Vereshagin <peter@vereshagin.org> w= rote: > Hello. > > 2012/06/14 00:23:25 +0400 Peter Vereshagin <peter@vereshagin.org> =3D> To= freebsd-questions@freebsd.org: > > PV> ot the least how could I see the 'real' size of each of those files, = both =A0~150M > PV> actulally, with a system command? > > also, 'du' works that way for regular files. But implicitly I wanted abou= t ls's > key, thanks a lot guys! Yes, the default for du is the actual disk usage, and "du -A" gives the apparent size. We run an OpenSolaris filer with on-the-fly compression, and I've occasionally had people express confusion after copying a large text file to it and finding the copy to be smaller than the original when viewed with 'du'. ;)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHhngE1pFZWjgGCU0moVBrKQwA9uaR984uXSg1_GnGAjCL7jnQ>