Can somebody explain this? du & ls showing different sizes

[Vijay Gill]

2009/2/15 Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan at gmail.com>:
> On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 23:11 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote:
>> 2009/2/15 Rick <ellis at spinics.net>:
>> > In article <60fdb1ad0902151205v6ef67c07v128f0c88f5895240 at mail.gmail.com>,
>> > Vijay Gill  <fedora-list at redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Running du -h tells that the file occupies 512M but ls -l tells that
>> >>the file is a lot smaller.
>> >
>> > Apples and oranges. You get the file *size* with ls and the disk usage
>> > with du. They aren't the same thing.
>> >
>> > --
>> > http://yosemitenews.info/
>> >
>> > --
>> > fedora-list mailing list
>> > fedora-list at redhat.com
>> > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>> > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
>> >
>>
>> Thanks but I knew that already. I was just curious why 512Mbytes is
>> allocated to a file so small? Also I have provided allocsize which is
>> definitely not 512M!
>
> That could be because you're using XFS.
>
> poc
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
>

Thanks but how does that statement explain the behaviour I am seeing?