1

This question already has an answer here:

On a panfs filesystem:

  • pan_quota says I'm using 8.67 GB.
  • du -hcsx says I'm using 8.1 GB.
  • baobab says I'm using 3.3 GB.

This is for my home directory, with a 8 GB soft and 10 GB hard quota. What might cause the modest discrepancy between duand pan_quota? And what may cause the huge discrepancy between baobab and either du or pan_quota?

The difference is not due to one or two specific files, but propagates down and is present for smaller and larger directories alike.

marked as duplicate by derobert, Jeff Schaller, Anthon, garethTheRed, Jakuje Apr 23 '16 at 7:45

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • Do you have a lot of tiny files? Could be a logical v. physical size difference; what does du --apparent-size -hcsx give? – derobert Apr 22 '16 at 17:34
  • 5
  • @derobert 34301 files, blocksize 64 kB. The du --apparent-size -hcsx command you suggest gives the same answer as baobab. – gerrit Apr 22 '16 at 22:39
  • @derobert I have partly. I thought the differences I found are too large to be explained by it, but perhaps I was wrong. Block size is apparently 64k. – gerrit Apr 22 '16 at 22:41
  • @gerrit That's what's going on then, it's small files eating an entire block. A 64k block size is pretty big. The question Gilles linked explains in depth. – derobert Apr 22 '16 at 22:41
1

The disk space used by a file includes more than the size of the contents. Most filesystems use fixed-size blocks; if a file's size isn't a multiple of the block size, then the last block is only partially filled. du counts the total number of blocks, which is usually a little more than the sum of the file sizes since it also includes the part of the last block that isn't filled.

I think the difference between pan_quota and du -h is due to the fact that the PANFS filesystem doesn't report its block size accurately. The JASMIN FAQ suggests using pand_du instead of du.

It seems that on your machine, Baobab is displaying the sum of the file sizes. That's the number you get with du --appparent-size. Baobab displays the actual disk usage on my machine (but with 1GB = 109 bytes, whereas du -h uses 1GB = 230 bytes); I think this is because you're using a version older than this change

commit dbcbe27e0452eeacbc4a253f1b0b1a06708834de
Author: Paolo Borelli <pborelli@gnome.org>
Date:   2012-01-07

    Use the STANDARD_ALLOCATED_SIZE file attribute.

but I haven't traced it down to make sure.

For more information about disk usage discrepancies, see Why are there so many different ways to measure disk usage?

  • I neglected to mention that I don't run baobab on the host machine (where it is unavailable), but through sshfs, so perhaps that prevents baobab from performing an accurate calculation. – gerrit Apr 23 '16 at 20:33

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.