From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:21:47 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <0a0ca940937f390bd435a89a8604dd06@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <20120116115545.GB618@polynum.com>
References: <201201160739.q0G7dDXS024165@freefriends.org>
	<20120116115545.GB618@polynum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] du vs. ls: duplication or not?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5d1bbf4c-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> That's indeed a reason, showing that ls(1) is more on the abstract level
> (whatever the implementation, ls(1) shows ownership and permissions
> ---that can have no real relationship in the actual store) while du(1)
> tries to show effective story and needs to know more about effective
> storage.
>
> And it can work only with some filesystems.  (Think ftpfs etc. and think
> sharing of blocks)

du works the same with all file servers.

i think the problem here is applying semantics to the output.  du
performance a specified operation (adding up the d->size in the
stat output.)  as is plan 9 tradition, what that /means/ is up to the
file server you're talking to.

- erik