All -

thanks for the replies. The java method was the most interesting, but I couldn't get it to work consistently - some directories it would work on, but others it would claim that the directory didn't exist. I tried a few things, but could never get it to be reliable, so I punted on that. Nice to know about it, though !

For the record, I will probably end up using a VB script from Windows to accomplish what I need to do, since in our environment the Windows client can get to everything I need to get to, and I there are several that are on Gb networking, so the sizing will be faster.

Thanks,

John

Matti Ryymin wrote:

Hi John,

You can find du command in java shell; On console type java netapp.cmds.jsh in the shell you can use du command. You'll exit from shell with exit command.

regards,

Matti

Stephen C. Losen wrote:

4K and there are no fragments, so a file consumes disk space in 4K increments.

I would use Unix: du -k

Not that I know of.

One interesting bit of WAFL trivia -- if a file has <= 64 bytes of data then it consumes 0 blocks because the file data is stored in the inode.

Steve Losen scl@virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640

University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of John Foley Sent: 4. huhtikuuta 2007 19:07 To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: sizing files and folders on a filer

I am looking for the "best" way to size certain folders and files on a NetApp filer. I get different numbers depending on whether I use Windows (2000) or Unix (Solaris 9). (I am "root" in both cases, and thus able to see all the files in a folder,etc). I am wondering if this is due to different block sizes used by those OSes - Windows uses 4K, and Solaris 512K, I think (!)

So, my questions are :

1. what is WAFL's block size ?
2. what do you recommend for sizing folder and files that reside on the

filer, but are not themselves qtrees (so the quota report won't work) ? 3) is there a "du" command on the filer itself that I"m missing ?

Thanks,

  John