Re: filesystem full error with inumber

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:07:19 -0400
Sven Willenberger <sven@xxxxxxx> wrote:


Feargal Reilly presumably uttered the following on 07/24/06
11:48:

> Looking again at dumpfs, it appears to say that this is
> formatted with a block size of 8K, and a fragment size of
> 2K, but tuning(7) says: [...]
> Reading this makes me think that when this server was
> installed, the block size was dropped from the 16K
> default to 8K for performance reasons, but the fragment
> size was not modified accordingly.
>
> Would this be the root of my problem?

I think a bsize/fsize ratio of 4/1 _should_ work, but it's
not widely used, so there might be bugs hidden somewhere.


Such as df not reporting the actual data usage, which is now
my best working theory. I don't know what df bases it's
figures on, perhaps it either slowly got out of sync, or
more likely, got things wrong once the disk filled up.


One of my machines that I recently upgraded to 6.1
(6.1-RELEASE-p3) is also exhibiting df reporting wrong data
usage numbers. Notice the negative "Used" numbers below:

df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
/dev/da0s1a 496M 63M 393M 14% /
devfs 1.0K 1.0K 0B 100% /dev
/dev/da0s1e 989M -132M 1.0G -14% /tmp
/dev/da0s1f 15G 478M 14G 3% /usr
/dev/da0s1d 15G -1.0G 14G -8% /var
/dev/md0 496M 228K 456M
0% /var/spool/MIMEDefang devfs 1.0K 1.0K
0B 100% /var/named/dev

Sven

For the record, my problems occured with 5.4-PRERELEASE #1
which, for reasons beyond my control, I had not yet been unable
to upgrade.

What bsize/fsize ratio are you using? Mine was 4/1 instead of
the more usual 8/1.

BTW, anybody know what the best method be for double-checking
df's figures would be? du?

--
Feargal Reilly.
PGP Key: 0x847DE4C8 (expires: 2006-11-30)
Web: http://www.helgrim.com/ | ICQ: 109837009 | YIM: ectoraige
Visit http://ie.bsd.net/ - BSDs presence in Ireland

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature