Linux. Ubuntu using 35 GB?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Doe
  • Start date Start date
J

John Doe

I suppose I can look at properties, unless it won't let me,
but...

I'm using ubuntu Linux Unity "12.04" from this download.

ubuntu-12.04-desktop-i386.iso

Hopefully I can get a replacement SSD soon, so I'm sizing up my
dual boot ubuntu Linux and Windows XP.

My veteran installation of Windows XP (no big games, the swap file
is on the secondary drive) is using only 12.5 GB. A fresh install
of ubuntu Linux (no games) is using 35 GB. Does that sound right?
Obviously some of it is the swap file, is that easy to check? The
ubuntu Linux CD is only 700 MB and it couldn't have downloaded
tens of gigabytes during the installation.
 
My veteran installation of Windows XP (no big games, the swap file
is on the secondary drive) is using only 12.5 GB. A fresh install
of ubuntu Linux (no games) is using 35 GB. Does that sound right?
Click to expand...

That's surely not right. A fresh install of Ubuntu should only use about
4G of disk space (root + swap)
Obviously some of it is the swap file, is that easy to check? The
ubuntu Linux CD is only 700 MB and it couldn't have downloaded
tens of gigabytes during the installation.
Click to expand...

The `mount` command should reveal that.

--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
 
John said:
I suppose I can look at properties, unless it won't let me,
but...

I'm using ubuntu Linux Unity "12.04" from this download.

ubuntu-12.04-desktop-i386.iso

Hopefully I can get a replacement SSD soon, so I'm sizing up my
dual boot ubuntu Linux and Windows XP.

My veteran installation of Windows XP (no big games, the swap file
is on the secondary drive) is using only 12.5 GB. A fresh install
of ubuntu Linux (no games) is using 35 GB. Does that sound right?
Obviously some of it is the swap file, is that easy to check? The
ubuntu Linux CD is only 700 MB and it couldn't have downloaded
tens of gigabytes during the installation.
Click to expand...

Tried 12.04 in a VM and it shows roughly 3GB installed.

You can use the "df" command to list "Disk Free" and get
utilization information.

If you "cd /" and then do "du" you can get disk used information
on a folder basis. Better to redirect the output, as in

sudo du > ~/myfolders.txt

Or even

sudo du | tee ~/myfolders.txt

Then later

gedit ~/myfolders.txt

There is a graphical application called "k4dirstat". Which
is similar in appearance to the Windows "SequoiaView", but k4dirstat
would pull in so many KDE4 packages, as to take forever. These are the
perils of decorating an application with "KDE trim", when
the OS you're using is running GNOME. To install a tiny application,
then requires downloading half of a KDE desktop. (I have the same
problem, when I manually install K3B, a nice DVD burner program.)

Start with the "df" command, which is a built-in, and
enough for a quick check.

Paul
 
Paul said:
You can use the "df" command to list "Disk Free" and get
utilization information.
Click to expand...
If you "cd /" and then do "du" you can get disk used information
on a folder basis. Better to redirect the output, as in

sudo du > ~/myfolders.txt
sudo du | tee ~/myfolders.txt
Click to expand...

The Linux permission garbage raised its ugly head again, refusing
to let me do that.

The df command says about 5 GB, not 35 GB.
 
John said:
The Linux permission garbage raised its ugly head again, refusing
to let me do that.

The df command says about 5 GB, not 35 GB.
Click to expand...

The purpose of elevating the "du" command, is
exactly so it won't complain about permissions.

If the ~/myfolders.txt is causing a problem,
try /tmp/myfolders.txt instead. Anyone can at
least write to /tmp. But /tmp is also set up,
so different users can't read each other's temporary files.

I'm just surprised it's taking so much "sudo" to do this.

You can set the scrollback on the terminal, to like,
a million lines, and then the entire session is stored
in the terminal scroll buffer. Then, you can just let
it fill the screen with crap, as in

cd /

sudo du

and it will give you the disk used info for each folder.

*******

Maybe it's time to "let the genie out of the bottle".

Have you tried this yet ?

sudo su root

passwd

What that would allow you to do, in theory, is first
"become root". The terminal prompt may change to a
dollar sign. Try "who" or "who am i" at that point,
to get confirmation you're running as root. And
then the passwd command may allow you to define a
password for root.

Then later, you can log in as root if you want.

After you've done the above, then as a normal user perhaps,
in a terminal window...

su root

and then it'll prompt for the admin password. And now
you know the root password, because you just set it above.
That would elevate that terminal session, for some
"terminal magic".

You're not supposed to run as admin. And even the
Window manager may complain if you do a noob thing
like try to run the whole session as root. So it's not
an "open circus" like it used to be. At one time, if you
started your session as root, everything was "open sesame".
Now, various programs check and get pissed if you're
running as root. They'll scold you and waggle a finger
at you. Root operation works better, if you
stuck in a single command console (running in single
user mode, repairing something).

As my mom would say "it's all fun and games, until
someone loses an eye". And then we all get on the
floor, and pretend there's an eye ball rolling around... :-)

Paul
 
Paul said:
John Doe wrote:
Click to expand...

That is from Macrium Reflect, showing Linux is using 35 GB instead
of the actual 5 GB.
The purpose of elevating the "du" command, is exactly so it
won't complain about permissions.
Click to expand...

I selected your text in the browser, and then clicked and dragged
it to the command prompt. I always copy and paste, if available.
Copy and paste is usually easier, and it eliminates needless user
error. Therefore, the quoted text that you see above is almost
certainly what was entered in the command prompt.

I might try your other suggestion later. All that matters is
whether Macrium Reflect messes up for some strange reason, because
it misinterprets the free space on the drive. That's probably not
going to happen. I am mainly curious about why it incorrectly
shows so much used space.
 
John said:
That is from Macrium Reflect, showing Linux is using 35 GB instead
of the actual 5 GB.
Click to expand...

I see two logicals.

I'm guessing the 4GB one is the swap partition.

No idea why 3+GB of installed files would register as 35.4GB
worth of files on the main partition. The Macrium release
notes seem to claim "optimized" size determination for EXT3 since
v4.2.2020/21. I don't know what they'd be seeing as "busy
sectors".

Paul
 
Paul said:
These are the perils of decorating an application with "KDE
trim", when the OS you're using is running GNOME. To install a
tiny application, then requires downloading half of a KDE
desktop.
Click to expand...

I see... I will pay closer attention to the disk usage prompt.
 
A fresh install of ubuntu Linux (no games) is using 35 GB.

That was according to Macrium Reflect.
In another install, it shows the correct usage.
FWIW. I will keep an eye out for what might cause it.
 
Back
Top