On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Christian Kujau wrote: >> jfs_fsck could probably determine when this table is over-sized and >> rebuild it to be smaller. I've thought about it before, but haven't >> gotten around to doing anything. > > Doesn't hurt much, I've seen it only by accident.
Actually, I could imagine a scenario, where it *does* hurt: df(1) too was seeing this ~570 MB - when I deleted/moved the directory, these bytes were freed: $ df -k . Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/sda7 29634456 21307876 8326580 72% /data $ mv bwbar /tmp/ $ df -k . Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/sda7 29634456 20723776 8910680 70% /data So, even if jfs_fsck could fix this - isn't this a problem when e.g. /var/log or some spool with lots of updates in the same directory is put on JFS? Although the space is not "really" lost, recreating /var/log every now and then still feels a bit uglly :-\ Christian. -- BOFH excuse #97: Small animal kamikaze attack on power supplies ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
