Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

Level 1

7 points

One more "Where did my space go"

OK, so here is my story. I've run through several similar posts here but none seems to answer my question.

I have a MacBook Pro late 2008, Core 2 Duo, with 250GB HDD, partitioned in 2 disks, Macintosh HD with 150GB and "Jobs" with 100GB Mountain Lion.

A couple of weeks ago I've received a message saying Macintosh HD was full and the file I was trying to, could not be saved.

Did the basics, empty trash, delete or move some files around (I have 4TB in external disks) and made 33GB room at Macintosh HD.

But I still believed that something was wrong. Did some "get info" and Äbout this Mac" but there was some spacing missing.

Found some articles, like "Where did my space go?", follow the steps, log files, restart, disk utility repair, look for local snapshots, false volumes and ran OmniDisk Sweeper (Image attached). Also changed permission on Guest account and it is not using space at all.

Still have no idea where could possibly be the missing space.

Since OmniDisk Sweeper has user limitations, I activated the root user and started an assessment using linux command line to do another space check. And bellow are the results.

Bottom line, I've found almost 80GB of used space if I sum all folder results on / running du -h command (list bellow).

80GB are close to what OmniDisk Sweeper is showing for Macintosh HD but not if I look to Disk list.

On the other side, get info Mac OS is showing almost 120GB used as OmniDisk Sweeper Drive list window.

Linux also shows df -h 118GB used.

Ok, I'm lost. Someone could help? What could possibly be the reason for the difference in used space?

Is there a way to see what is using this space?

sh-3.2# df -h

Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity iused ifree %iused Mounted on

/dev/disk0s2 139Gi 118Gi 21Gi 85% 30908405 5444199 85% /

devfs 193Ki 193Ki 0Bi 100% 666 0 100% /dev

map -hosts 0Bi 0Bi 0Bi 100% 0 0 100% /net

map auto_home 0Bi 0Bi 0Bi 100% 0 0 100% /home

/dev/disk0s4 93Gi 41Gi 52Gi 44% 10705775 13748593 44% /Volumes/Jobs

/dev/disk1s2 931Gi 97Gi 834Gi 11% 25486873 218619793 10% /Volumes/Docs

/dev/disk2s2 931Gi 794Gi 137Gi 86% 208140741 35965925 85% /Volumes/Media

//admin@NAS._afpovertcp._tcp.local/Share 1.8Ti 840Gi 1.0Ti 46% 220288893 264256161 45% /Volumes/Share

-rw-rw-r-- 1 root admin 21508 Jun 13 13:26 .DS_Store

d--x--x--x 8 root wheel 272 Feb 9 11:37 .DocumentRevisions-V100

drwxr-xr-x+ 3 root wheel 102 May 29 00:48 .MobileBackups

drwx------ 5 root wheel 170 Aug 20 2012 .Spotlight-V100

d-wx-wx-wt@ 2 root _unknown 68 Aug 19 2012 .Trashes

srwxrwxrwx 1 root wheel 0 Jun 9 00:09 .dbfseventsd

---------- 1 root admin 0 Jun 20 2012 .file

drwx------ 47 root wheel 1598 Jun 13 15:13 .fseventsd

-rw-------@ 1 root wheel 196608 Jun 2 22:19 .hotfiles.btree

drwxr-xr-x@ 2 root wheel 68 Jun 20 2012 .vol

drwxrwxr-x+ 63 root admin 2142 Jun 10 14:16 Applications

drwxr-xr-x+ 62 root wheel 2108 Jun 13 11:28 Library

drwxr-xr-x@ 2 root wheel 68 Jun 20 2012 Network

drwxr-xr-x+ 4 root wheel 136 Aug 19 2012 System

drwxr-xr-x 6 root admin 204 Jun 13 11:28 Users

drwxrwxrwt@ 8 root admin 272 Jun 13 15:15 Volumes

drwxr-xr-x@ 39 root wheel 1326 Jun 9 00:01 bin

drwxrwxr-t@ 2 root admin 68 Jun 20 2012 cores

dr-xr-xr-x 3 root wheel 4498 Jun 9 00:07 dev

lrwxr-xr-x@ 1 root wheel 11 Aug 19 2012 etc -> private/etc

dr-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 1 Jun 9 00:14 home

-rw-r--r--@ 1 root wheel 8194272 May 24 07:44 mach_kernel

dr-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 1 Jun 9 00:14 net

drwxr-xr-x@ 6 root wheel 204 Aug 19 2012 private

drwxr-xr-x@ 62 root wheel 2108 Jun 9 00:01 sbin

lrwxr-xr-x@ 1 root wheel 11 Aug 19 2012 tmp -> private/tmp

drwxr-xr-x@ 10 root wheel 340 Aug 19 2012 usr

lrwxr-xr-x@ 1 root wheel 11 Aug 19 2012 var -> private/var

sh-3.2# du -sh var

4.0K var

sh-3.2# du -sh usr

500M usr

sh-3.2# du -sh tmp

4.0K tmp

sh-3.2# du -sh sbin

1.6M sbin

sh-3.2# du -sh private

5.9G private

sh-3.2# du -sh net

1.0K net

sh-3.2# du -sh mach_kernel

7.8M mach_kernel

sh-3.2# du -sh home

1.0K home

sh-3.2# du -sh etc

4.0K etc

sh-3.2# du -sh dev

4.5K dev

sh-3.2# du -sh cores

0B cores

sh-3.2# du -sh bin

3.1M bin

sh-3.2# du -sh users

59G users

sh-3.2# du -sh System

4.2G System

sh-3.2# du -sh Network

0B Network

sh-3.2# du -sh Library

1.9G Library

sh-3.2# du -sh Applications

2.2G Applications

sh-3.2# du -sh .vol

0B .vol

sh-3.2# du -sh .hotfiles.btree

192K .hotfiles.btree

sh-3.2# du -sh .fseventsd

1.1M .fseventsd

sh-3.2# du -sh .file

0B .file

sh-3.2# du -sh .dbfseventsd

0B .dbfseventsd

sh-3.2# du -sh .Trashes

0B .Trashes

sh-3.2# du -sh .Spotlight-V100

651M .Spotlight-V100

sh-3.2# du -sh .MobileBackups

6.4G .MobileBackups

sh-3.2# du -sh .DocumentRevisions-V100

152K .DocumentRevisions-V100

sh-3.2# du -sh .DS_Store

24K .DS_Store

MacBook Pro, OS X Mountain Lion (10.8.4), 13" Late 2008

Posted on Jun 17, 2013 10:59 AM

34 replies

Pondini

Level 8

38,863 points

Jun 18, 2013 1:41 PM in response to Linc Davis

I'm thinking more of small files -- 80 bytes, 200 bytes, etc.

Counting blocks will get a large number, and the large the blocksize, the larger the discrepancy; counting bytes won't.

Linc Davis

Level 10

209,547 points

Jun 18, 2013 1:54 PM in response to Pondini

Regardless of file size, larger blocks will cause du to report its size as larger than, or equal to, what it would be if the blocks were smaller. Since the total discrepancy is in favor of the Finder, larger blocks decrease it.

Pondini

Level 8

38,863 points

Jun 18, 2013 1:58 PM in response to Linc Davis

Sorry to be dense, but:

A 100-byte file in a 4KB block will be 100 bytes or 4 KB.

The same file in an 8KB block will still be 100 bytes, but 8 KB.

Multiply both numbers by a few thousand files, and don't you get a much larger discrepancy with larger blocks?

Linc Davis

Level 10

209,547 points

Jun 18, 2013 2:12 PM in response to Pondini

The total discrepancy has the opposite sign, because most files are larger than one block. The effect you describe makes the magnitude of the total discrepancy smaller.

Pondini

Level 8

38,863 points

Jun 18, 2013 2:19 PM in response to Linc Davis

I don't see how. The larger the block size, isn't there more unused space likely at the end of the last block?

And Applications, Library, and System folders seem to have many thousands of mostly-small files, many of which are much smaller than even a 4 KB block.

Linc Davis

Level 10

209,547 points

Jun 18, 2013 2:31 PM in response to Pondini

The OP is showing, and I am showing, and you are showing, that du reports less space used than the Finder window reports. That's because compressed files take up less space, on average, than they would if they weren't compressed. The discrepancy is:

Finder > du

If the block size were larger, then the left-hand side in the above inequality would be the same, and the right-hand side would be larger. The discrepancy would be smaller.

fditt Author

Level 1

7 points

Jun 18, 2013 2:55 PM in response to Linc Davis

Thanks guys for your effort trying to help me find the answer.

Just to let you know, reindexing is running, and it will take a couple of hours more.

About the HFS compression, I ran the commands exactly how Linc asked and I didn't see any difference on sizing. Is compressions default on HFS or user configured? The results bellow give you any extra information?

sh-3.2# ls -lh /Applications/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS/Mail

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 4.7M May 24 07:46 /Applications/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS/Mail

sh-3.2# du -h /Applications/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS/Mail

4.7M /Applications/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS/Mail

It got worse. I deleted some old files from .Mobilebackups once they got to 13GB from 6,4G. This cause get info to show more free space, but no changes in drive list sizes on Omni but less used space on Macintosh HD window on omni.

And know .MobileBackups is back to 13GB, and get info did not changed!!!!

sh-3.2# du -sh .Mobilebackups

13G .Mobilebackups

Linc Davis

Level 10

209,547 points

Jun 18, 2013 3:05 PM in response to fditt

I deleted some old files from .Mobilebackups

Please don't do things like that. You're thrashing around, randomly destroying data for no reason. Relax and enjoy using your computer.

Pondini

Level 8

38,863 points

Jun 18, 2013 3:33 PM in response to Linc Davis

Linc Davis wrote:

The OP is showing, and I am showing, and you are showing, that du reports less space used than the Finder window reports.

Uh, sorry, but I don't see that.

In the screenshot, Get Info shows 117.79 GB used. Add the 2.6 GB of Local Snapshots, and you get 120.39 GB.

The Storage display shows 29.19 free out of 148.09 total, a difference of 119.71 GB. Pretty close.

My question is, why does the Omni Disk Sweeper display show only 73.0 used (in it's toolbar)?

Pondini

Level 8

38,863 points

Jun 18, 2013 3:38 PM in response to fditt

fditt wrote:

. . .

It got worse. I deleted some old files from .Mobilebackups once they got to 13GB from 6,4G. This cause get info to show more free space, but no changes in drive list sizes on Omni but less used space on Macintosh HD window on omni.

And know .MobileBackups is back to 13GB, and get info did not changed!!!!

.MobileBackups (Local snapshots) are not counted as used by the Finder or Get Info, because they're expendable -- they're deleted automatically as necessary to keep your disk below 80%. That's why I added them to the Get Info figure above. But they are counted as used by Disk Utility, and shown separately on the Storage display.

Think of them as (temporary) versions for files that don't have regular versions.

See Time Machine - Frequently Asked Question #30 for the gory details.

Linc Davis

Level 10

209,547 points

Jun 19, 2013 8:24 AM in response to Pondini

My question is, why does the Omni Disk Sweeper display show only 73.0 used (in it's toolbar)?

Because it's not running as root. He's not logged in as root, and no terminal program is showing in the Dock.

Pondini

Level 8

38,863 points

Jun 19, 2013 8:31 AM in response to Linc Davis

Linc Davis wrote:

My question is, why does the Omni Disk Sweeper display show only 73.0 used (in it's toolbar)?

Because it's not running as root. He's not logged in as root, and no terminal program is showing in the Dock.

Sorry to be a pest, but he says he is, in posts 1 and 3: Since OmniDisk Sweeper has user limitations, I activated the root user and started an assessment

And Terminal does show as open in the Dock on the screenshot.

@ fditt: can you verify that the screenshot showing Omni was made while running as the root user?

Linc Davis

Level 10

209,547 points

Jun 19, 2013 8:54 AM in response to Pondini

I was looking at the first screenshot. The second one does show the Terminal icon.

Linc Davis

Level 10

209,547 points

Jun 19, 2013 9:54 AM in response to Linc Davis

I just ran ODS as root, and it showed an inaccurate total of space used. I don't know why.

Pondini

Level 8

38,863 points

Jun 19, 2013 10:18 AM in response to Linc Davis

As a friend of mine used to say, "That's un-good." 😉

@ fditt: It might be worth the $13 to try WhatSize (direct from the maker, not the AppStore), per the green box in Where did my Disk Space go?

One more "Where did my space go"