On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:48:06 +0100, Jürgen Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Frank Batschulat wrote
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:31:32 +0100, Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ufs
> magic 11954 format dynamic time Wed Feb 21 14:28:15 2007
> sblkno 16 cblkno 24 iblkno 32 dblkno 760
> sbsize 2048 cgsize 8192 cgoffset 64 cgmask 0xffffffc0
> ncg 93 size 4530330 blocks 4461120
> bsize 8192 shift 13 mask 0xffffe000
> fsize 1024 shift 10 mask 0xfffffc00
> frag 8 shift 3 fsbtodb 1
> minfree 1% maxbpg 2048 optim time
> maxcontig 7 rotdelay 0ms rps 60
> csaddr 760 cssize 2048 shift 9 mask 0xfffffe00
> ntrak 48 nsect 128 spc 6144 ncyl 1475
> cpg 16 bpg 6144 fpg 49152 ipg 5824
> nindir 2048 inopb 64 nspf 2
> nbfree 0 ndir 15704 nifree 381641 nffree 135498
> cgrotor 52 fmod 0 ronly 0 logbno 1568
> rolled 2 si 1 flags 0
> version 2
> fs_reclaim FS_RECLAIM
> Dateisystem-Status gültig,
> fsclean ist -3
> Blöcke verfügbar in jeder Drehposition
so you formerly claimed:
<snip>
unknon ufs NOTICE: alloc /: file system full
Thats impossile: There must be at least 90 GB free space
<snip end>
thats not possible since / is about 34.56 GB in size, since
you have fs->fs_size = 4530330 (number of blocks in fs)
* block size of 8k fs->fs_bsize = 8192 makes up a ~ 34.56 GB file
system.
Is fs->fs_bsize == 8192 the correct unit for fs->fs_size and
fs->fs_blocks ?
Isn't it fs->fs_fsize ?
thanks for catching this ! :-)
of course thats correct, it's the fragment size that should be
accounted here instead of the file system block size.
I'd say this is a 4.5GB filesystem. Which can easily be filled with a
full Solaris Developer Express installation...
indeed.
---
frankB
_______________________________________________
ufs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
