[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130517194419.GA4002@mobil.systemanalysen.net>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 21:44:19 +0200
From: Roland Eggner <edvx1@...temanalysen.net>
To: Chris Jones <chrisjones@...n.net.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Linux source tree size difference issue
On 2013-05-17 Friday at 10:20 +1000 Chris Jones wrote:
> I have cloned the Linux kernel source tree locally. It comes in at
> approx. ~500MB. I have then created another git repository to push the
> source to for my own work. I rsynced the tree locally to another
> directory and now I am currently pushing it in to the new repository and
> it's at 58% and is already at 525MB.
>
> I can not understand the stark difference in source and directory size.
> Running diff tells me both local source tree directories are exactly the
> same.
>
> Can anyone explain this in layman's terms?
$ LC_ALL=C du --help | grep -E -e 'apparent|sparse|fragmentation'
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--apparent-size print apparent sizes, rather than disk usage; although
the apparent size is usually smaller, it may be
larger due to holes in ('sparse') files, internal
fragmentation, indirect blocks, and the like
-b, --bytes equivalent to '--apparent-size --block-size=1'
--
Regards
Roland Eggner
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists