[Techtalk] Re: Different usage betweed df and du
Wim De Smet
kromagg at gmail.com
Wed Jul 13 23:46:44 EST 2005
On 7/13/05, Sue Stones <suzo at spin.net.au> wrote:
> Mary wrote:
>
> >This is actually rather useful. It allows you to do really quite
> >fundamental things like upgrading libc, which practically everything
> >uses, *without rebooting*.
> >
> >
> That is very cool in my opinion.
>
> > 2. in your situation, it can mean that deleting something doesn't free
> > up disk space, because a long running process still has the deleted
> > version open. This is Conor's theory. It's quite easily testable if
> > you reboot: rebooting will force all processes to stop. If you
> > reboot and df and du still disagree, Conor's theory has been
> > falsified :)
> >
> Well after deleting a few things and saving what I was working on,
> rebooting was the first thing that I did. Before posting here, it made
> no difference to the numbers reported by du or df. So it doesn't seem
> like that is the problem.
>
> The "self tests" on the disc finished too, and its still reporting no
> errors. At least that suggests that the disc is not going to fail in the
> middle of my current (uni) project (due next week).
>
> Is there anything else that could be taking up space but not visible to
> the filesystem?
>
> sue
A rootkit perhaps. But I'd think that they'd install a modified df and
not bother with the du. Did you run du as root btw?
greets,
Wim
More information about the Techtalk
mailing list