From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pobox.fab.redhat.com (pobox.fab.redhat.com [10.33.63.12]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n1HApPYo026990 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:51:25 -0500 Received: from breeves.fab.redhat.com (breeves.fab.redhat.com [10.33.0.40]) by pobox.fab.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n1HApRWP025077 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:51:27 -0500 Message-ID: <499A96CD.20808@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:51:57 +0000 From: "Bryn M. Reeves" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] File system size difference betwen lvdisplay & df -h References: <9d1973c20902170225m7e0f87d2ydda7622a2c0dccf7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9d1973c20902170225m7e0f87d2ydda7622a2c0dccf7@mail.gmail.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: bmr@redhat.com, LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development Dayanand Math wrote: > Hi, > > I am observing the file system size difference between df -h & > lvdisplay output for the systems with RHEL 4 (update 3 & 6). Its > showing the discrepancy in size between lvdisplay & df -h , If > lvsize is less than 1GB .. Is there any specific reason for that.. > > Regs, DM You don't tell us what the discrepancy is or give an example, so it's hard to make any useful suggestions. Can you provide sample command output that shows the discrepancy you are referring to? Regards, Bryn.