ShredderFeeder@shredderfood.net to Selfhosted@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agoAddiction....shredderfood.netimagemessage-square66fedilinkarrow-up1231arrow-down14file-text
arrow-up1227arrow-down1imageAddiction....shredderfood.netShredderFeeder@shredderfood.net to Selfhosted@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square66fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareJankatarch@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·3 hours agoIs there any advantage of using du over df for this?
minus-squarebitjunkie@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·2 hours agoSomeone may eventually write CLI programs called hast and mich that you can somehow usefully pipe to it
minus-squareanon_8675309@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 hour agoYeah it lets you have time to get some tea while it works.
minus-squareEphera@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·2 hours agodf only shows partitions, whereas du adds up the file sizes in the directory you specify. So, in particular, if you want to find out what’s taking up so much space, you can repeatedly run du -sh * and cd into the largest directory.
minus-squareShredderFeeder@shredderfood.netOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 hour agoWhat he said. DF won’t take into account the contents of mount points within a directory.
minus-squareShredderFeeder@shredderfood.netOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 hour agoWhat he said. DF won’t take into account the contents of mount points within a directory.
Is there any advantage of using
duoverdffor this?Someone may eventually write CLI programs called
hastandmichthat you can somehow usefully pipe to itYeah it lets you have time to get some tea while it works.
dfonly shows partitions, whereasduadds up the file sizes in the directory you specify.So, in particular, if you want to find out what’s taking up so much space, you can repeatedly run
du -sh *andcdinto the largest directory.What he said. DF won’t take into account the contents of mount points within a directory.
What he said. DF won’t take into account the contents of mount points within a directory.