From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 19 03:49:02 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4776F106566C for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 03:49:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from kientzle.com (kientzle.com [66.166.149.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D4C8FC0A for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 03:49:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: (from root@localhost) by kientzle.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) id n4J3mqbD078580; Mon, 18 May 2009 20:48:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from dark.x.kientzle.com (fw2.kientzle.com [10.123.1.2]) by kientzle.com with SMTP id wa6f698vya8x8pttycgstj4m9a; Mon, 18 May 2009 20:48:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <4A122C23.40603@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 20:48:51 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090409 SeaMonkey/1.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Wootton , "'freebsd-current@freebsd.org'" References: <4A1123C5.3070507@fletchermoorland.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4A1123C5.3070507@fletchermoorland.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: discrepancies in used space after cpio X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 03:49:02 -0000 Paul Wootton wrote: > > I am currently in the process of moving all my data around, going from a > single zfs drive (ex-mirror) to a zfs raidz. > I have used cpio to copy the data to the new pool, but a du shows a big > difference in the results. > > Does anyone have any ideas, or does a "du -h ." not do what I think it > should? ... ... > > demophon# pwd > /DemoPool/var/tmp/kdecache-paul/kpc > demophon# ls -lah > total 1282522 > drwx------ 2 paul paul 25B May 15 19:35 . > drwx------ 11 paul paul 16B May 15 19:36 .. > -rw-r--r-- 1 paul paul 5.0M May 6 16:47 kapman_cache.data > -rw-r--r-- 1 paul paul 1.3M May 6 16:47 kapman_cache.index ... ... > demophon# du -h . > 1.2G . > > demophon# pwd > /var/tmp/kdecache-paul/kpc > demophon# ls -lah > total 7833 > drwx------ 2 paul paul 25B May 18 09:37 . > drwx------ 11 paul paul 16B May 18 09:12 .. > -rw-r--r-- 1 paul paul 5.0M May 6 16:47 kapman_cache.data > -rw-r--r-- 1 paul paul 1.3M May 6 16:47 kapman_cache.index ... ... > demophon# du -h . > 7.6M . Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: > Ehmm, possibly stupid question: sparse files? Dmitry's probably right here: Files .data/.index are probably some kind of database package, which are often highly sparse files. Try "du -k *" in each of these directories to see how much disk space is actually allocated to each file; that would verify that file sparseness is at issue here. Tim