du wrongly reports empty directory












13














I'm using these commands:



du -sh --apparent-size ./*
du -sh ./*


both reporting:



4.0K    ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup
432M ./Lightroom catalog - wine_backup


while those directories contain:



$ll ./"Lightroom catalog - wine_backup"
total 432M
-rwxrwx--- 1 gigi gigi 432M Mar 18 2018 Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat
-rwxrwx--- 1 gigi gigi 227 Nov 21 2015 zbackup.bat
$ll ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup
total 396M
-rwxrwx--- 3 gigi gigi 396M Dec 17 09:35 Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat
-rwxrwx--- 3 gigi gigi 227 Dec 17 09:35 zbackup.bat


Why du is reporting 4.0K for ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup and how could I make it to report correctly?



PS: other system information:



$stat --file-system $HOME
File: "/home/gigi"
ID: 5b052c62a5a527bb Namelen: 255 Type: ext2/ext3
Block size: 4096 Fundamental block size: 4096
Blocks: Total: 720651086 Free: 155672577 Available: 119098665
Inodes: Total: 183050240 Free: 178896289

$lsb_release -a
No LSB modules are available.
Distributor ID: Ubuntu
Description: Ubuntu 16.04.5 LTS
Release: 16.04
Codename: xenial









share|improve this question
























  • To build on the answers already given so far, what does /bin/ls -li './*/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat' return?
    – Doug O'Neal
    Dec 17 at 18:01










  • ls -li ./*/"Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat" 36831321 -rwxrwx--- 1 gigi gigi 432M Mar 18 2018 ./Lightroom catalog - wine_backup/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat 36833201 -rwxrwx--- 3 gigi gigi 396M Dec 17 09:35 ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat
    – adrhc
    Dec 17 at 18:09








  • 1




    This presents a problem with the answers since the file with the link count of three is not being counted elsewhere in the du command. So you have only two subdirectories in your working directory?
    – Doug O'Neal
    Dec 17 at 18:16










  • no, I have approximately 15 others
    – adrhc
    Dec 17 at 18:29
















13














I'm using these commands:



du -sh --apparent-size ./*
du -sh ./*


both reporting:



4.0K    ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup
432M ./Lightroom catalog - wine_backup


while those directories contain:



$ll ./"Lightroom catalog - wine_backup"
total 432M
-rwxrwx--- 1 gigi gigi 432M Mar 18 2018 Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat
-rwxrwx--- 1 gigi gigi 227 Nov 21 2015 zbackup.bat
$ll ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup
total 396M
-rwxrwx--- 3 gigi gigi 396M Dec 17 09:35 Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat
-rwxrwx--- 3 gigi gigi 227 Dec 17 09:35 zbackup.bat


Why du is reporting 4.0K for ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup and how could I make it to report correctly?



PS: other system information:



$stat --file-system $HOME
File: "/home/gigi"
ID: 5b052c62a5a527bb Namelen: 255 Type: ext2/ext3
Block size: 4096 Fundamental block size: 4096
Blocks: Total: 720651086 Free: 155672577 Available: 119098665
Inodes: Total: 183050240 Free: 178896289

$lsb_release -a
No LSB modules are available.
Distributor ID: Ubuntu
Description: Ubuntu 16.04.5 LTS
Release: 16.04
Codename: xenial









share|improve this question
























  • To build on the answers already given so far, what does /bin/ls -li './*/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat' return?
    – Doug O'Neal
    Dec 17 at 18:01










  • ls -li ./*/"Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat" 36831321 -rwxrwx--- 1 gigi gigi 432M Mar 18 2018 ./Lightroom catalog - wine_backup/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat 36833201 -rwxrwx--- 3 gigi gigi 396M Dec 17 09:35 ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat
    – adrhc
    Dec 17 at 18:09








  • 1




    This presents a problem with the answers since the file with the link count of three is not being counted elsewhere in the du command. So you have only two subdirectories in your working directory?
    – Doug O'Neal
    Dec 17 at 18:16










  • no, I have approximately 15 others
    – adrhc
    Dec 17 at 18:29














13












13








13


2





I'm using these commands:



du -sh --apparent-size ./*
du -sh ./*


both reporting:



4.0K    ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup
432M ./Lightroom catalog - wine_backup


while those directories contain:



$ll ./"Lightroom catalog - wine_backup"
total 432M
-rwxrwx--- 1 gigi gigi 432M Mar 18 2018 Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat
-rwxrwx--- 1 gigi gigi 227 Nov 21 2015 zbackup.bat
$ll ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup
total 396M
-rwxrwx--- 3 gigi gigi 396M Dec 17 09:35 Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat
-rwxrwx--- 3 gigi gigi 227 Dec 17 09:35 zbackup.bat


Why du is reporting 4.0K for ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup and how could I make it to report correctly?



PS: other system information:



$stat --file-system $HOME
File: "/home/gigi"
ID: 5b052c62a5a527bb Namelen: 255 Type: ext2/ext3
Block size: 4096 Fundamental block size: 4096
Blocks: Total: 720651086 Free: 155672577 Available: 119098665
Inodes: Total: 183050240 Free: 178896289

$lsb_release -a
No LSB modules are available.
Distributor ID: Ubuntu
Description: Ubuntu 16.04.5 LTS
Release: 16.04
Codename: xenial









share|improve this question















I'm using these commands:



du -sh --apparent-size ./*
du -sh ./*


both reporting:



4.0K    ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup
432M ./Lightroom catalog - wine_backup


while those directories contain:



$ll ./"Lightroom catalog - wine_backup"
total 432M
-rwxrwx--- 1 gigi gigi 432M Mar 18 2018 Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat
-rwxrwx--- 1 gigi gigi 227 Nov 21 2015 zbackup.bat
$ll ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup
total 396M
-rwxrwx--- 3 gigi gigi 396M Dec 17 09:35 Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat
-rwxrwx--- 3 gigi gigi 227 Dec 17 09:35 zbackup.bat


Why du is reporting 4.0K for ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup and how could I make it to report correctly?



PS: other system information:



$stat --file-system $HOME
File: "/home/gigi"
ID: 5b052c62a5a527bb Namelen: 255 Type: ext2/ext3
Block size: 4096 Fundamental block size: 4096
Blocks: Total: 720651086 Free: 155672577 Available: 119098665
Inodes: Total: 183050240 Free: 178896289

$lsb_release -a
No LSB modules are available.
Distributor ID: Ubuntu
Description: Ubuntu 16.04.5 LTS
Release: 16.04
Codename: xenial






disk-usage






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 17 at 8:06

























asked Dec 17 at 7:52









adrhc

216110




216110












  • To build on the answers already given so far, what does /bin/ls -li './*/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat' return?
    – Doug O'Neal
    Dec 17 at 18:01










  • ls -li ./*/"Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat" 36831321 -rwxrwx--- 1 gigi gigi 432M Mar 18 2018 ./Lightroom catalog - wine_backup/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat 36833201 -rwxrwx--- 3 gigi gigi 396M Dec 17 09:35 ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat
    – adrhc
    Dec 17 at 18:09








  • 1




    This presents a problem with the answers since the file with the link count of three is not being counted elsewhere in the du command. So you have only two subdirectories in your working directory?
    – Doug O'Neal
    Dec 17 at 18:16










  • no, I have approximately 15 others
    – adrhc
    Dec 17 at 18:29


















  • To build on the answers already given so far, what does /bin/ls -li './*/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat' return?
    – Doug O'Neal
    Dec 17 at 18:01










  • ls -li ./*/"Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat" 36831321 -rwxrwx--- 1 gigi gigi 432M Mar 18 2018 ./Lightroom catalog - wine_backup/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat 36833201 -rwxrwx--- 3 gigi gigi 396M Dec 17 09:35 ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat
    – adrhc
    Dec 17 at 18:09








  • 1




    This presents a problem with the answers since the file with the link count of three is not being counted elsewhere in the du command. So you have only two subdirectories in your working directory?
    – Doug O'Neal
    Dec 17 at 18:16










  • no, I have approximately 15 others
    – adrhc
    Dec 17 at 18:29
















To build on the answers already given so far, what does /bin/ls -li './*/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat' return?
– Doug O'Neal
Dec 17 at 18:01




To build on the answers already given so far, what does /bin/ls -li './*/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat' return?
– Doug O'Neal
Dec 17 at 18:01












ls -li ./*/"Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat" 36831321 -rwxrwx--- 1 gigi gigi 432M Mar 18 2018 ./Lightroom catalog - wine_backup/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat 36833201 -rwxrwx--- 3 gigi gigi 396M Dec 17 09:35 ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat
– adrhc
Dec 17 at 18:09






ls -li ./*/"Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat" 36831321 -rwxrwx--- 1 gigi gigi 432M Mar 18 2018 ./Lightroom catalog - wine_backup/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat 36833201 -rwxrwx--- 3 gigi gigi 396M Dec 17 09:35 ./Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup/Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat
– adrhc
Dec 17 at 18:09






1




1




This presents a problem with the answers since the file with the link count of three is not being counted elsewhere in the du command. So you have only two subdirectories in your working directory?
– Doug O'Neal
Dec 17 at 18:16




This presents a problem with the answers since the file with the link count of three is not being counted elsewhere in the du command. So you have only two subdirectories in your working directory?
– Doug O'Neal
Dec 17 at 18:16












no, I have approximately 15 others
– adrhc
Dec 17 at 18:29




no, I have approximately 15 others
– adrhc
Dec 17 at 18:29










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















23














I can reproduce if the files are hard links:



~ mkdir foo bar
~ dd if=/dev/urandom of=bar/file1 count=1k bs=1k
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1048576 bytes (1.0 MB, 1.0 MiB) copied, 0.00985276 s, 106 MB/s
~ ln bar/file1 foo/file1
~ du -sh --apparent-size foo bar
1.1M foo
4.0K bar


This is expected behaviour. From the GNU du docs:




If two or more hard links point to the same file, only one of the hard
links is counted. The file argument order affects which links are
counted, and changing the argument order may change the numbers and
entries that du outputs.




If you really need repeated sizes of hard links, try the -l option:




-l

--count-links

Count the size of all files, even if they have appeared already (as a
hard link).




~ du -sh --apparent-size foo bar -l
1.1M foo
1.1M bar





share|improve this answer





























    15














    Notice how the link count is 3 for the two files Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat and zbackup.bat in Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup.



    This means that these two files are hard linked to (additional names for) other files somewhere. When you run du on a directory or a set of files, each hard link is only counted once.



    Example:



    $ ls -l
    total 41024
    -rw-r--r-- 2 kk wheel 10485760 Dec 17 09:07 file1
    -rw-r--r-- 2 kk wheel 10485760 Dec 17 09:07 file2

    $ du -h file1
    10.0M file1

    $ du -h file2
    10.0M file2

    $ du -h .
    10.0M .


    This behaviour is explicitly mandated by the POSIX standard for the du utility:




    A file that occurs multiple times under one file operand and that has a link count greater than 1 shall be counted and written for only one entry.




    Some du implementations have non-standard options to disable this behaviour. For GNU du, this is done with the -l option.






    share|improve this answer































      3














      It's almost certainly working correctly. du counts each file only once regardless of how many times it's referenced. It's probable that your two directories contain the same set of hard-linked files.



      The man page for GNU du offers -l, --count-links to switch off this standard optimisation (see man du to check if your implementation includes this). Or you run du twice, once for each directory.






      share|improve this answer





















        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "106"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489421%2fdu-wrongly-reports-empty-directory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        23














        I can reproduce if the files are hard links:



        ~ mkdir foo bar
        ~ dd if=/dev/urandom of=bar/file1 count=1k bs=1k
        1024+0 records in
        1024+0 records out
        1048576 bytes (1.0 MB, 1.0 MiB) copied, 0.00985276 s, 106 MB/s
        ~ ln bar/file1 foo/file1
        ~ du -sh --apparent-size foo bar
        1.1M foo
        4.0K bar


        This is expected behaviour. From the GNU du docs:




        If two or more hard links point to the same file, only one of the hard
        links is counted. The file argument order affects which links are
        counted, and changing the argument order may change the numbers and
        entries that du outputs.




        If you really need repeated sizes of hard links, try the -l option:




        -l

        --count-links

        Count the size of all files, even if they have appeared already (as a
        hard link).




        ~ du -sh --apparent-size foo bar -l
        1.1M foo
        1.1M bar





        share|improve this answer


























          23














          I can reproduce if the files are hard links:



          ~ mkdir foo bar
          ~ dd if=/dev/urandom of=bar/file1 count=1k bs=1k
          1024+0 records in
          1024+0 records out
          1048576 bytes (1.0 MB, 1.0 MiB) copied, 0.00985276 s, 106 MB/s
          ~ ln bar/file1 foo/file1
          ~ du -sh --apparent-size foo bar
          1.1M foo
          4.0K bar


          This is expected behaviour. From the GNU du docs:




          If two or more hard links point to the same file, only one of the hard
          links is counted. The file argument order affects which links are
          counted, and changing the argument order may change the numbers and
          entries that du outputs.




          If you really need repeated sizes of hard links, try the -l option:




          -l

          --count-links

          Count the size of all files, even if they have appeared already (as a
          hard link).




          ~ du -sh --apparent-size foo bar -l
          1.1M foo
          1.1M bar





          share|improve this answer
























            23












            23








            23






            I can reproduce if the files are hard links:



            ~ mkdir foo bar
            ~ dd if=/dev/urandom of=bar/file1 count=1k bs=1k
            1024+0 records in
            1024+0 records out
            1048576 bytes (1.0 MB, 1.0 MiB) copied, 0.00985276 s, 106 MB/s
            ~ ln bar/file1 foo/file1
            ~ du -sh --apparent-size foo bar
            1.1M foo
            4.0K bar


            This is expected behaviour. From the GNU du docs:




            If two or more hard links point to the same file, only one of the hard
            links is counted. The file argument order affects which links are
            counted, and changing the argument order may change the numbers and
            entries that du outputs.




            If you really need repeated sizes of hard links, try the -l option:




            -l

            --count-links

            Count the size of all files, even if they have appeared already (as a
            hard link).




            ~ du -sh --apparent-size foo bar -l
            1.1M foo
            1.1M bar





            share|improve this answer












            I can reproduce if the files are hard links:



            ~ mkdir foo bar
            ~ dd if=/dev/urandom of=bar/file1 count=1k bs=1k
            1024+0 records in
            1024+0 records out
            1048576 bytes (1.0 MB, 1.0 MiB) copied, 0.00985276 s, 106 MB/s
            ~ ln bar/file1 foo/file1
            ~ du -sh --apparent-size foo bar
            1.1M foo
            4.0K bar


            This is expected behaviour. From the GNU du docs:




            If two or more hard links point to the same file, only one of the hard
            links is counted. The file argument order affects which links are
            counted, and changing the argument order may change the numbers and
            entries that du outputs.




            If you really need repeated sizes of hard links, try the -l option:




            -l

            --count-links

            Count the size of all files, even if they have appeared already (as a
            hard link).




            ~ du -sh --apparent-size foo bar -l
            1.1M foo
            1.1M bar






            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Dec 17 at 8:04









            muru

            1




            1

























                15














                Notice how the link count is 3 for the two files Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat and zbackup.bat in Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup.



                This means that these two files are hard linked to (additional names for) other files somewhere. When you run du on a directory or a set of files, each hard link is only counted once.



                Example:



                $ ls -l
                total 41024
                -rw-r--r-- 2 kk wheel 10485760 Dec 17 09:07 file1
                -rw-r--r-- 2 kk wheel 10485760 Dec 17 09:07 file2

                $ du -h file1
                10.0M file1

                $ du -h file2
                10.0M file2

                $ du -h .
                10.0M .


                This behaviour is explicitly mandated by the POSIX standard for the du utility:




                A file that occurs multiple times under one file operand and that has a link count greater than 1 shall be counted and written for only one entry.




                Some du implementations have non-standard options to disable this behaviour. For GNU du, this is done with the -l option.






                share|improve this answer




























                  15














                  Notice how the link count is 3 for the two files Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat and zbackup.bat in Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup.



                  This means that these two files are hard linked to (additional names for) other files somewhere. When you run du on a directory or a set of files, each hard link is only counted once.



                  Example:



                  $ ls -l
                  total 41024
                  -rw-r--r-- 2 kk wheel 10485760 Dec 17 09:07 file1
                  -rw-r--r-- 2 kk wheel 10485760 Dec 17 09:07 file2

                  $ du -h file1
                  10.0M file1

                  $ du -h file2
                  10.0M file2

                  $ du -h .
                  10.0M .


                  This behaviour is explicitly mandated by the POSIX standard for the du utility:




                  A file that occurs multiple times under one file operand and that has a link count greater than 1 shall be counted and written for only one entry.




                  Some du implementations have non-standard options to disable this behaviour. For GNU du, this is done with the -l option.






                  share|improve this answer


























                    15












                    15








                    15






                    Notice how the link count is 3 for the two files Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat and zbackup.bat in Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup.



                    This means that these two files are hard linked to (additional names for) other files somewhere. When you run du on a directory or a set of files, each hard link is only counted once.



                    Example:



                    $ ls -l
                    total 41024
                    -rw-r--r-- 2 kk wheel 10485760 Dec 17 09:07 file1
                    -rw-r--r-- 2 kk wheel 10485760 Dec 17 09:07 file2

                    $ du -h file1
                    10.0M file1

                    $ du -h file2
                    10.0M file2

                    $ du -h .
                    10.0M .


                    This behaviour is explicitly mandated by the POSIX standard for the du utility:




                    A file that occurs multiple times under one file operand and that has a link count greater than 1 shall be counted and written for only one entry.




                    Some du implementations have non-standard options to disable this behaviour. For GNU du, this is done with the -l option.






                    share|improve this answer














                    Notice how the link count is 3 for the two files Lightroom 5 Catalog Linux.lrcat and zbackup.bat in Lightroom_catalog_from_win_backup.



                    This means that these two files are hard linked to (additional names for) other files somewhere. When you run du on a directory or a set of files, each hard link is only counted once.



                    Example:



                    $ ls -l
                    total 41024
                    -rw-r--r-- 2 kk wheel 10485760 Dec 17 09:07 file1
                    -rw-r--r-- 2 kk wheel 10485760 Dec 17 09:07 file2

                    $ du -h file1
                    10.0M file1

                    $ du -h file2
                    10.0M file2

                    $ du -h .
                    10.0M .


                    This behaviour is explicitly mandated by the POSIX standard for the du utility:




                    A file that occurs multiple times under one file operand and that has a link count greater than 1 shall be counted and written for only one entry.




                    Some du implementations have non-standard options to disable this behaviour. For GNU du, this is done with the -l option.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited Dec 17 at 9:50

























                    answered Dec 17 at 8:06









                    Kusalananda

                    121k16229372




                    121k16229372























                        3














                        It's almost certainly working correctly. du counts each file only once regardless of how many times it's referenced. It's probable that your two directories contain the same set of hard-linked files.



                        The man page for GNU du offers -l, --count-links to switch off this standard optimisation (see man du to check if your implementation includes this). Or you run du twice, once for each directory.






                        share|improve this answer


























                          3














                          It's almost certainly working correctly. du counts each file only once regardless of how many times it's referenced. It's probable that your two directories contain the same set of hard-linked files.



                          The man page for GNU du offers -l, --count-links to switch off this standard optimisation (see man du to check if your implementation includes this). Or you run du twice, once for each directory.






                          share|improve this answer
























                            3












                            3








                            3






                            It's almost certainly working correctly. du counts each file only once regardless of how many times it's referenced. It's probable that your two directories contain the same set of hard-linked files.



                            The man page for GNU du offers -l, --count-links to switch off this standard optimisation (see man du to check if your implementation includes this). Or you run du twice, once for each directory.






                            share|improve this answer












                            It's almost certainly working correctly. du counts each file only once regardless of how many times it's referenced. It's probable that your two directories contain the same set of hard-linked files.



                            The man page for GNU du offers -l, --count-links to switch off this standard optimisation (see man du to check if your implementation includes this). Or you run du twice, once for each directory.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Dec 17 at 8:08









                            roaima

                            42.8k551116




                            42.8k551116






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489421%2fdu-wrongly-reports-empty-directory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Morgemoulin

                                Scott Moir

                                Souastre