--- On Mon, 2/16/09, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Can somebody explain this? du ls showing different sizes
To: fedora-list@redhat.com
Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 8:45 AM
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 07:13 +
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 13:15 -0800, Leslie Satenstein wrote:
--- On Mon, 2/16/09, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com
wrote:
From: Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Can somebody explain this? du ls showing
different sizes
On Monday 16 February 2009 07:13:23 Vijay Gill wrote:
...
In my case I have provided 1M which is far much less than 512M which
XFS is pre-allocating. This is what caught my eye.
That might be 1M * 512 byte traditional disk sector size?
Cheers
Vijay
--
fedora-list mailing list
What do you mean the problem went away? Do you mean that the 512M
files created under the new kernel now showed only a few bytes
allocated, or do you mean that *new* files created under the *old*
kernel don't have the 512M allocation?
poc
PS Your mailer is including the entire trailer of
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 18:12 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
What do you mean the problem went away? Do you mean that the 512M
files created under the new kernel now showed only a few bytes
allocated, or do you mean that *new* files created under the *old*
kernel don't have the 512M allocation?
Latest kernel (kernel-2.6.27.12-170.2.5.fc10.i686): files under
/var/log, /var/run and even MySQL database files get 512M allocated to
them while they are open (which they do while system is running) even
though their size is very small, leading to reporting of very less
free space(a few
Back again with another observation.
I found out that this issue happens only with
kernel-2.6.27.12-170.2.5.fc10.i686 (the latest one I have). I had a
previous kernel too (kernel-2.6.27.9-159.fc10.i686) and there is no
problem with that. I tried compare the change log of the two rpms and
there
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 23:05 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
Back again with another observation.
I found out that this issue happens only with
kernel-2.6.27.12-170.2.5.fc10.i686 (the latest one I have). I had a
previous kernel too (kernel-2.6.27.9-159.fc10.i686) and there is no
problem with that.
2009/2/17 Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com:
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 23:05 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
Back again with another observation.
I found out that this issue happens only with
kernel-2.6.27.12-170.2.5.fc10.i686 (the latest one I have). I had a
previous kernel too
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 07:13 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
2009/2/16 Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com:
On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 23:45 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
That could be because you're using XFS.
poc
[...]
Thanks but how does that statement explain the behaviour I am seeing?
Hi
I just came across this issue on my server at home which complained
about the lack of space which I knew was wrong. It was supposed to
have atleast 3.5 gig free. On investigating I found that there a few
lines showing the following behaviour.
Running du -h tells that the file occupies 512M
2009/2/15 Rick el...@spinics.net:
In article 60fdb1ad0902151205v6ef67c07v128f0c88f5895...@mail.gmail.com,
Vijay Gill fedora-list@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
2009/2/15 Vijay Gill vijay.s.g...@gmail.com:
2009/2/15 Rick el...@spinics.net:
In article 60fdb1ad0902151205v6ef67c07v128f0c88f5895...@mail.gmail.com,
Vijay Gill fedora-list@redhat.com wrote:
Running du -h tells that the file occupies 512M but ls -l tells that
the file is a lot smaller.
On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 23:11 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
2009/2/15 Rick el...@spinics.net:
In article 60fdb1ad0902151205v6ef67c07v128f0c88f5895...@mail.gmail.com,
Vijay Gill fedora-list@redhat.com wrote:
Running du -h tells that the file occupies 512M but ls -l tells that
the file is a lot
2009/2/15 Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com:
On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 23:11 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
2009/2/15 Rick el...@spinics.net:
In article 60fdb1ad0902151205v6ef67c07v128f0c88f5895...@mail.gmail.com,
Vijay Gill fedora-list@redhat.com wrote:
Running du -h tells that the file
On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 23:45 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
That could be because you're using XFS.
poc
[...]
Thanks but how does that statement explain the behaviour I am seeing?
I'm reaching here, but since XFS uses allocation strategies different
from the more familiar ext3 system, I wondered
2009/2/16 Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com:
On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 23:45 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
That could be because you're using XFS.
poc
[...]
Thanks but how does that statement explain the behaviour I am seeing?
I'm reaching here, but since XFS uses allocation strategies
17 matches
Mail list logo
