[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Can somebody explain this? du & ls showing different sizes



On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 18:12 +0000, 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?
> >
> > poc
> >
> > PS Your mailer is including the entire trailer of list messages in the
> > quoted material. This is dumb and most mailers don't do it. You should
> > either edit it out or consider using a different mailer.
> >
> 
> By 'the problem went away' I meant that the files were no getting 512M
> allocated for them even if they were a few bytes in size.

Allocated *under which kernel*? You still haven't said. If this is a
genuine bug you should report it to Bugzilla, but it's essential to be
clear about what's happening.
 
> The trouble it was causing is explained in following text.
> 
> The files in question were in /var/log and /var/run. Most of them were
> very small (ranging from 5-6 bytes to a few kilo bytes). But XFS
> pre-allocated 512M to them. Once XFS pre-allocates space to a file,
> the free space reported decreases by the amount that is pre-allocated
> and not by the actual data written into the file. If these files are
> closed then XFS would report free space left correctly. Since these
> files were always open, my hard disk showed only a few megabytes free
> even though it was supposed to have 3.1Gb free (as reported now).
> 
> I have a suspicion that there is another linux user facing similar
> problem (he also ran out of space in /var as he said). He might be
> running the latest kernel.

If I remember correctly, he was talking about installing (or
reinstalling) an old system, something like FC7.

> As far as my mailer is concerned I am using gmail (web interface). I
> try to truncate the text as much as possible and keep text from only
> previous mail so that the context is clear. It is as dumb as it is I
> cannot help there.

Well this time you did remove the trailing material, so that's fine.

poc


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]