Now that you mention it, it *is* strange that the NFS mount was not listed by the "df" function.
Try again after a fresh reboot: #: df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/aacd0s1a 496M 176M 280M 39% / devfs 1.0K 1.0K 0B 100% /dev /dev/aacd0s1e 496M 15M 441M 3% /tmp /dev/aacd0s1f 28G 4.8G 21G 19% /usr /dev/aacd0s1d 1.9G 430M 1.3G 24% /var server2:/storage/blah/foo/data/ 397G 103G 262G 28% /usr/home/development/mount/foobar I guess I must have missed the final line when copying the output when I first posted to the mailing list. And then when I replied Mel, I had already nmounted the NFS dir when attempting the suggested fix, so it did not show when I ran "df" again to double-check, and I did not realize what had happened. I apologise for any confusion caused. Best Regards, Brendan Hart --------------------------------- Brendan Hart, Development Manager Strategic Ecommerce Division Securepay Pty Ltd Phone: 08-8274-4000 Fax: 08-8274-1400 -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Chadwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 31 October 2008 12:02 PM To: Brendan Hart Cc: 'Mel'; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Large discrepancy in reported disk usage on USR partition On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:50:39AM +1030, Brendan Hart wrote: > >> #: df -h > >> Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on > >> /dev/aacd0s1a 496M 163M 293M 36% / > >> devfs 1.0K 1.0K 0B 100% /dev > >> /dev/aacd0s1e 496M 15M 441M 3% /tmp > >> /dev/aacd0s1f 28G 25G 1.2G 96% /usr > >> /dev/aacd0s1d 1.9G 429M 1.3G 24% /var > > > Is this output untruncated? Is df really df or an alias to 'df -t nonfs'? > > Yes, it really is the untruncated output of "df -h". I also tried the > "df -t nonfs" and it gives exactly the same output as "df". What are > you expecting that is not present in the output ? > > > Is it possible that nfs directory got written to /usr at some point > > in > time? > > You would only notice this with du if the nfs directory is unmounted. > > Unmount it and ls -al /usr/mountpoint should only give you an empty > > dir > > Bingo!! That is exactly the problem. An NFS mount was hiding a 17G > local dir which had an old copy of the entire NFS mounted dir. I guess > it must have been written incorrectly to this standby server by RSYNC > before the NFS mount was put in place. I will add an exclusion to > rsync to make sure it does not happen again even if the NFS dir is not mounted. > > Thank you for your help, you have saved me much time rebuilding this server. Can either of you outline what exactly happened here? I'm trying to figure out how an "NFS mount was hiding a 17G local dir", when there's no NFS mounts shown in the above df output. This is purely an ignorant question on my part, but I'm not able to piece together what happened. -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3571 (20081030) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3571 (20081030) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"