Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*du\s+vs\.\s+df\s+inconsistency\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*du\s+vs\.\s+df\s+inconsistency\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author: Jameel Akari <jakari@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 10:46:37 -0500 (EST); I have an issue with an XFS filesystem on one server where df reports it as one value (say, 95%, or even 100% full) but the actual total of file sizes is much less. df -h: /dev/sda5 9.8G 8.0G 1.8G 82; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00025.html (9,531 bytes)
2. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 08:56:49 +0800; Have you tried running xfs_repair on the properly unmounted filesystem? A small disparity between du and df is expected and acceptable for filesystem overhead, but the disparity you're reporting is a; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00035.html (9,097 bytes)
3. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:04:41 -0600; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00038.html (8,380 bytes)
4. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author: Roberto <roberto.trovo@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:08:35 +0100 (CET); Yes, this could be an interesting test: I remember (some times ago) on this list a similar problem where a deleted files where still keep open by a daemon process: this led to df - du to disagree...; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00041.html (8,862 bytes)
5. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author: Jameel Akari <jakari@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:46:29 -0500 (EST); On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Eric Sandeen wrote: Jameel Akari wrote: Anything else I can try before I dump the fs and make a new one? Does the problem persist immediately after remounting the fs? Well, not re; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00043.html (11,347 bytes)
6. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author: Jameel Akari <jakari@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:51:01 -0500 (EST); mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sda5, or too many mounted file systems Oh, and these wonderful kernel messages: Feb 4 10:54:01 alb-ndm kernel: xfs_unmount: xfs_ibusy says err; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00044.html (12,077 bytes)
7. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:11:41 -0600; Jameel Akari wrote: mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sda5, or too many mounted file systems Oh, and these wonderful kernel messages: Feb 4 10:54:01 alb-ndm kernel: xfs_unmount; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00045.html (10,207 bytes)
8. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author: Jameel Akari <jakari@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:26:08 -0500 (EST); Feb 4 10:54:01 alb-ndm kernel: VFS: Busy inodes after unmount. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. Have a nice day... Feb 4 10:56:32 alb-ndm kernel: XFS: Filesystem sd(8,5) has duplicate UUID - can't mount T; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00046.html (10,268 bytes)
9. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:55:25 -0600; Jameel Akari wrote: Feb 4 10:54:01 alb-ndm kernel: VFS: Busy inodes after unmount. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. Have a nice day... Feb 4 10:56:32 alb-ndm kernel: XFS: Filesystem sd(8,5) has duplicate; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00047.html (10,361 bytes)
10. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author: Robert Brockway <rbrockway@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 17:02:31 +0000 (GMT); On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Roberto wrote: Yes, this could be an interesting test: I remember (some times ago) on this list a similar problem where a deleted files where still keep open by a daemon process:; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00049.html (9,765 bytes)
11. du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 10:46:37 -0500 (EST); I have an issue with an XFS filesystem on one server where df reports it as one value (say, 95%, or even 100% full) but the actual total of file sizes is much less. df -h: /dev/sda5 9.8G 8.0G 1.8G 82; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00182.html (9,531 bytes)
12. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 08:56:49 +0800; Have you tried running xfs_repair on the properly unmounted filesystem? A small disparity between du and df is expected and acceptable for filesystem overhead, but the disparity you're reporting is a; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00192.html (9,097 bytes)
13. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:04:41 -0600; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00195.html (8,380 bytes)
14. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:08:35 +0100 (CET); Yes, this could be an interesting test: I remember (some times ago) on this list a similar problem where a deleted files where still keep open by a daemon process: this led to df - du to disagree...; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00198.html (8,862 bytes)
15. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:46:29 -0500 (EST); On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Eric Sandeen wrote: Jameel Akari wrote: Anything else I can try before I dump the fs and make a new one? Does the problem persist immediately after remounting the fs? Well, not re; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00200.html (11,347 bytes)
16. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:51:01 -0500 (EST); mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sda5, or too many mounted file systems Oh, and these wonderful kernel messages: Feb 4 10:54:01 alb-ndm kernel: xfs_unmount: xfs_ibusy says err; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00201.html (12,077 bytes)
17. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:11:41 -0600; Jameel Akari wrote: mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sda5, or too many mounted file systems Oh, and these wonderful kernel messages: Feb 4 10:54:01 alb-ndm kernel: xfs_unmount; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00202.html (10,207 bytes)
18. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:26:08 -0500 (EST); Feb 4 10:54:01 alb-ndm kernel: VFS: Busy inodes after unmount. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. Have a nice day... Feb 4 10:56:32 alb-ndm kernel: XFS: Filesystem sd(8,5) has duplicate UUID - can't mount T; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00203.html (10,268 bytes)
19. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:55:25 -0600; Jameel Akari wrote: Feb 4 10:54:01 alb-ndm kernel: VFS: Busy inodes after unmount. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. Have a nice day... Feb 4 10:56:32 alb-ndm kernel: XFS: Filesystem sd(8,5) has duplicate; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00204.html (10,361 bytes)
20. Re: du vs. df inconsistency (score: 1): Author:; Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 17:02:31 +0000 (GMT); On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Roberto wrote: Yes, this could be an interesting test: I remember (some times ago) on this list a similar problem where a deleted files where still keep open by a daemon process:; /archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00206.html (9,765 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]