du wrongly reports empty directory
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
add a comment |
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
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 thedu
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
add a comment |
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
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
disk-usage
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 thedu
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
add a comment |
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 thedu
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
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
answered Dec 17 at 8:04
muru
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited Dec 17 at 9:50
answered Dec 17 at 8:06
Kusalananda
121k16229372
121k16229372
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered Dec 17 at 8:08
roaima
42.8k551116
42.8k551116
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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