"Brad Knowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 9:21 PM -0400 2000/7/3, Will Andrews wrote:
>
> > Does anyone else here think this is a good idea?
>
> If you're looking for votes, you've got mine.
>
> BTW, will this play nicely with -h? Consider me stupid if you
yes since all in
hi everybody and Happy New Year,
anybody to commit http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=19635 ?
one of the reasons it was not commited was due to an overflow problem
which has been fixed since.
thanks by advance..
Cyrille.
--
home: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] work: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8 Jul 2000, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
> Paul Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hee, hee. Yes, this is probably no big deal (and not put forth as any
> > strong argument for not commiting this)
>
> humm! you are looking for a small bug (the beast :)
> this problem also exists w/ du -c...
Sheldon Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 15:47:25 -0400, Will Andrews wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 04:06:46PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> > > My only objection is that it seems to produce useless values. Can you
> > > think of a use for these grand totals?
> >
Paul Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Bill Fumerola wrote:
>
[snip]
> Filesystem1K-blocks UsedAvail Capacity Mounted on
> /dev/ad0s2a 44650330922 379861 8%/
> /dev/ad0s9e 1453615 758910 57841657%/usr
> /dev/ad0s9
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 06:09:54PM +0200, Paul Herman wrote:
>
> > Naturally, "no reason not to put it in" is most certainly *not* a
> > reason to put it in. I would like to hear some to sway me one way or
> > the other.
> >
>
> [...]
> [hawk-billf]
On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 06:09:54PM +0200, Paul Herman wrote:
> Naturally, "no reason not to put it in" is most certainly *not* a
> reason to put it in. I would like to hear some to sway me one way or
> the other.
>
> Spoiler:
> df /disk1 /disk2 | \
> awk '/^\// {t+=$2;u+=$3;} END { print "Tot
On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 12:58:27PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
> account the 10% (or whatever) overhead that is typically left
> unallocated for performance reasons.
FreeBSD defaults to 8%.
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe free
On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 06:09:54PM +0200, Paul Herman wrote:
> Naturally, "no reason not to put it in" is most certainly *not* a
> reason to put it in. I would like to hear some to sway me one way or
> the other.
How about precedent: du -c. "Hey, we could have used an awk script with
du(1) too!
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 10:26:00 -0400, Brian Hechinger wrote:
>
> > beancounters don't understand that computers can have more than one disk let
> > alone multiple slices. so it gives a nice total number to slap into a pie
> > chart so that you can r
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 10:26:00 -0400, Brian Hechinger wrote:
> beancounters don't understand that computers can have more than one disk let
> alone multiple slices. so it gives a nice total number to slap into a pie
> chart so that you can requisition more hard drives for your machines.
This ar
At 12:41 PM +0200 2000/7/6, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
> mfs:26 87M11K80M 0%/tmp
> /dev/ad0s1f 1.2G 934M 241M80%/usr
> /dev/ad0s1e 193M92M86M52%/va
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 20:48:46 +1000, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
> Those are block available to non-superuser I think, not "just available"
> There's some amount reserved (10% ?).
Duh. Classic mistake in disguise. :-)
Sorry to trouble.
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PR
+[ Sheldon Hearn ]-
|
| As a side issue, can anyone explain these peculiar results from df(1)'s
| huamn-readable (-h) output:
|
| Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
| mfs:26 87M11K80M 0%
As a side issue, can anyone explain these peculiar results from df(1)'s
huamn-readable (-h) output:
Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
mfs:26 87M11K80M 0%/tmp
/dev/ad0s1f 1.2G 934M 241M80%/usr
/dev/ad0s1e
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 09:56:43PM +0200, Blaz Zupan wrote:
>
> > this number is completely useless to me. I have to agree with Sheldon, where
> > is the use to this number?
>
> Think about doing something like
>
> $ df -c/disk0 /disk1 /disk2 ... /dis
On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 09:56:43PM +0200, Blaz Zupan wrote:
> Ok, so let's say my / is 100% full, my /usr is 50% full and my /var is 20%
> full. What would the total number tell me? That my file systems are 56.6%
> full. That tells me nothing about my root file system running out of space, so
> t
On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 22:34:41 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> > They are helpful for monitoring total space; I would use them in
> > administrative scripts to watch my space.
>
> Okay, then. Let me be more specific. How is the notion of "total
> space" useful? :-)
exactly. It will be more of sta
On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> Okay, then. Let me be more specific. How is the notion of "total
> space" useful? :-)
Tells you when it's time to get new hard drives?
I guess the originator of the PR should provide a reason. =\
--
Will Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 15:47:25 -0400, Will Andrews wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 04:06:46PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> > My only objection is that it seems to produce useless values. Can you
> > think of a use for these grand totals?
>
> They are helpful for monitoring total space; I woul
> They are helpful for monitoring total space; I would use them in
> administrative scripts to watch my space.
Ok, so let's say my / is 100% full, my /usr is 50% full and my /var is 20%
full. What would the total number tell me? That my file systems are 56.6%
full. That tells me nothing about my
On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 04:06:46PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> My only objection is that it seems to produce useless values. Can you
> think of a use for these grand totals?
They are helpful for monitoring total space; I would use them in
administrative scripts to watch my space.
Granted, thi
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 21:21:52 -0400, Will Andrews wrote:
> Does anyone else here think this is a good idea? If so, I'd like to
> merge this in -CURRENT and MFC before 4.1-RELEASE. It seems like a
> fairly nice addition to df(1), and can be useful for system accounting.
My only objection is th
At 9:21 PM -0400 2000/7/3, Will Andrews wrote:
> Does anyone else here think this is a good idea?
If you're looking for votes, you've got mine.
BTW, will this play nicely with -h? Consider me stupid if you
like, but I've recently been re-re-re-re-reading the man pages for
df
On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 03:32:11PM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote:
> My only suggestion is to put a dashed line above the totals in order to
> clearly say they are totals (like I did below).
That might be nice, but I object on the grounds that it isn't consistent
with du -c.
--
Will Andrews <[EMAIL P
On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 07:58:17AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Synopsis: add -c for grand total to df(1), like du(1) does
> >Description:
>
> sample of output :
>
> # df -c
> Filesystem 1K-blocks UsedAvail Capacity Mounted on
> /dev/da0s1a 1904559 1249983 502212
26 matches
Mail list logo
