|
Home > Archive > Unix administration > February 2006 > Directory size of 96
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Directory size of 96
|
|
| ka_stevens@hotmail.com 2006-02-07, 7:51 am |
| I noticed on one of our Solaris 8 servers, a directory size I have
never seen before. To my knowledge this is a UFS. I'm not sure what a
directory size of 96 means. My understanding is that directory sizes
start at 512 and then go up in multiples of 512 from there. Is this a
problem?
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 96 Nov 8 2002 tpa1
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 96 Nov 8 2002 tpa2
drwxr-xr-x 3 root other 512 Mar 16 2004 tpa3
drwxr-xr-x 3 root other 512 Mar 16 2004 tpa4
Thanks
| |
| Stephane Chazelas 2006-02-07, 7:51 am |
| On 7 Feb 2006 01:02:26 -0800, ka_stevens@hotmail.com wrote:
> I noticed on one of our Solaris 8 servers, a directory size I have
> never seen before. To my knowledge this is a UFS. I'm not sure what a
> directory size of 96 means. My understanding is that directory sizes
> start at 512 and then go up in multiples of 512 from there. Is this a
> problem?
>
> drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 96 Nov 8 2002 tpa1
> drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 96 Nov 8 2002 tpa2
> drwxr-xr-x 3 root other 512 Mar 16 2004 tpa3
> drwxr-xr-x 3 root other 512 Mar 16 2004 tpa4
[...]
Maybe autofs mount points?
--
Stephane
| |
| Doug Freyburger 2006-02-07, 6:03 pm |
| ka_stevens@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> I noticed on one of our Solaris 8 servers, a directory size I have
> never seen before. To my knowledge this is a UFS. I'm not sure what a
> directory size of 96 means. My understanding is that directory sizes
> start at 512 and then go up in multiples of 512 from there. Is this a
> problem?
>
> drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 96 Nov 8 2002 tpa1
> drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 96 Nov 8 2002 tpa2
> drwxr-xr-x 3 root other 512 Mar 16 2004 tpa3
> drwxr-xr-x 3 root other 512 Mar 16 2004 tpa4
On UFS empty directories appeared smaller than 512 like that.
I've never been sure why a directory containing only "." and ".."
would be listed smaller since it would have had a fragment or
block associated with it anyways. To me this appears to confirm
that they are in a UFS filesystem.
Do an "ls" on each of those and you'll see the top two are
empty and the bottom two aren't (or weren't, in UFS directories
don't shrink when files in them get deleted).
Per the listed mtime it looks like tpa1 and tpa2 were created
in 2002 and then never used.
|
|
|
|
|