At Thu, 5 Aug 2004 18:59:22 +0000 (UTC), "Jan Schaumann" wrote:
> The, '-s' does not report anything in number of bytes, but in number of
> *units of 512 bytes*.

Note that -s reports the size consumed on disk, not the actual file
size.  I.e., number of blocks allocated, not number of bytes logically
file.

So, the number reported by -l and -s may be very, very different.

In particular, note that:

> (FWIW, Linux ls(1) reports
> 516k -rw-------  1 jschauma cs 512k Aug  5 14:54 /var/tmp/foo
> whatever that's supposed to mean.)

Is not very strange at all, and really is the obvious answer to the
question:

when -s is used in combination with -h, have the -s ("storage
consumed", if you will) value be shown in a human readable form,
rather than that not-human-friendly 512 byt block count.



cgd