Why doesn't "total" from ls -l add up to total file sizes listed? [closed]
Why is the total in the output of ls -l
printed as 64
and not 26078
which is the total of all files listed?
$ ls -l ~/test/ls
total 64
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 15276 Oct 5 2004 a2ps.cfg
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2562 Oct 5 2004 a2ps-site.cfg
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Feb 2 2007 acpi
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 48 Feb 8 2008 adjtime
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Feb 2 2007 alchemist
Solution 1:
You can find the definition of that line in the ls
documentation for your platform. For coreutils
ls
(the one found on a lot of Linux systems), the information can be found via info coreutils ls
:
For each directory that is listed, preface the files with a line `total BLOCKS', where BLOCKS is the total disk allocation for all files in that directory.
Solution 2:
The Formula: What is that number?
total int = Sum of (physical_blocks_in_use) * physical_block_size/ls_block_size) for each file.
Where:
ls_block_size
is an arbitrary environment variable (normally 512 or 1024 bytes) which is freely modifiable with the--block-size=<int>
flag onls
, thePOSIXLY_CORRECT=1
GNU environment variable (to get 512-byte units), or the-k
flag to force 1kB units.physical_block_size
is the OS dependent value of an internal block interface, which may or may not be connected to the underlying hardware. This value is normally 512b or 1k, but is completely dependent on OS. It can be revealed through the%B
value onstat
orfstat
. Note that this value is (almost always) unrelated to the number of physical blocks on a modern storage device.
Why so confusing?
This number is fairly detached from any physical or meaningful metric. Many junior programmers haven't had experience with file holes or hard/sym links. In addition, the documentation available on this specific topic is virtually non-existent.
The disjointedness and ambiguity of the term "block size" has been a result of numerous different measures being easily confused, and the relatively deep levels of abstraction revolving around disk access.
Examples of conflicting information: du
(or ls -s
) vs stat
Running du *
in a project folder yields the following: (Note: ls -s
returns the same results.)
dactyl:~/p% du *
2 check.cc
2 check.h
1 DONE
3 Makefile
3 memory.cc
5 memory.h
26 p2
4 p2.cc
2 stack.cc
14 stack.h
Total: 2+2+1+3+3+5+26+4+2+14 = 62 Blocks
Yet when one runs stat
we see a different set of values. Running stat
in the same directory yields:
dactyl:~/p% stat * --printf="%b\t(%B)\t%n: %s bytes\n"
3 (512) check.cc: 221 bytes
3 (512) check.h: 221 bytes
1 (512) DONE: 0 bytes
5 (512) Makefile: 980 bytes
6 (512) memory.cc: 2069 bytes
10 (512) memory.h: 4219 bytes
51 (512) p2: 24884 bytes
8 (512) p2.cc: 2586 bytes
3 (512) stack.cc: 334 bytes
28 (512) stack.h: 13028 bytes
Total: 3+3+1+5+6+10+51+8+3+28 = 118 Blocks
Note: You can use the command
stat * --printf="%b\t(%B)\t%n: %s bytes\n"
> to output (in order) the number of blocks, (in parens) the size of those blocks, the name of the file, and the size in bytes, as shown above.
There are two important things takeaways:
-
stat
reports both thephysical_blocks_in_use
andphysical_block_size
as used in the formula above. Note that these are values based on OS interfaces. -
du
is providing what is generally accepted as a fairly accurate estimate of physical disk utilization.
For reference, here is the ls -l
of directory above:
dactyl:~/p% ls -l
**total 59**
-rw-r--r--. 1 dhs217 grad 221 Oct 16 2013 check.cc
-rw-r--r--. 1 dhs217 grad 221 Oct 16 2013 check.h
-rw-r--r--. 1 dhs217 grad 0 Oct 16 2013 DONE
-rw-r--r--. 1 dhs217 grad 980 Oct 16 2013 Makefile
-rw-r--r--. 1 dhs217 grad 2069 Oct 16 2013 memory.cc
-rw-r--r--. 1 dhs217 grad 4219 Oct 16 2013 memory.h
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 dhs217 grad 24884 Oct 18 2013 p2
-rw-r--r--. 1 dhs217 grad 2586 Oct 16 2013 p2.cc
-rw-r--r--. 1 dhs217 grad 334 Oct 16 2013 stack.cc
-rw-r--r--. 1 dhs217 grad 13028 Oct 16 2013 stack.h
Solution 3:
That is the total number of file system blocks, including indirect blocks, used by the listed files. If you run ls -s
on the same files and sum the reported numbers you'll get that same number.
Solution 4:
Just to mention - you can use -h (ls -lh) to convert this in human readable format.