[Top] [All Lists]

Re: df bigger than ls?

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: df bigger than ls?
From: Brian Candler <B.Candler@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:10:33 +0000
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=date:from:to :cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; s=sasl; bh=2wKMFBqmU7fyOtqQr2/opWPTrP0=; b=cmIdzMB zwu21Yyl6soxUwze/DYjH8UOi+3lyHVx5WLgqBYiQZlK8Jsbt2ywPBOii7z/4KAt 3HVhrGFKfSEuZirwP1Y52GUWbwrcmQU0+JcuANp6fafFkb8aOranlMQMZAfjwcAV SJloMYnl5KaB23OfDRoEX8Lm1pYQXLwZlQ4c=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; q=dns; s=sasl; b=dYBZb8LFKfqQTKp2iLflIoAO8z1wmNuAu DiaHZpPsM30pQSf3BlgzsfgNpIbFHeYm6vmNRB9EjQEV2abYFopzmHWUmVX7IEfg FD0SsTaNDp7B1IDUDjWGdZi37nUq/kXkpwXVqZcZ8zzNrpXvPYJwbdIyZpaEpeTU aTH5pQJs9c=
In-reply-to: <4F5816D6.80801@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20120307155439.GA23360@xxxxxxxx> <20120307171619.GA23557@xxxxxxxx> <4F57A32A.5010704@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20120308021054.GM3592@dastard> <4F5816D6.80801@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 08:17:58PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> It seems worth thinking about.  I guess I'm still a little concerned
> about the ENOSPC case; it could lead to some confusion - I could imagine
> several hundreds of gigs under preallocation, with a reasonable-sized
> filesystem returning ENOSPC quite early.

And presumably df on the filesystem would also show it approaching 100%

I'm used to this where a large file has been unlinked but is still open. 
The preallocation case is a new one to me though.

How about if the total of all preallocations were limited to some small
percentage of the total filesystem size?  If you reach this limit and want
to preallocate some space for another file you'd have to either drop or
shrink an older preallocation.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>