From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <499A9C88.4060100@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:16:24 +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> <499A96CD.20808@redhat.com> <9d1973c20902170305h14bfb304h84f839f5ac301b03@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9d1973c20902170305h14bfb304h84f839f5ac301b03@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: Dayanand Math Cc: LVM general discussion and development Dayanand Math wrote: > Hi, > > The following df -h & lvdisplay shows the discrpancy..What could be > the reson? I am referring to the discrepancy between LV Size in > lvdisplay & total size df -h output of the corresponding file > system. That just appears to be normal file system overheads. All file systems use some of the total space available on a device for storing internal structures and data (the file system's metadata). You'll see this with any block device type, e.g. with a 64M USB key: # df -h /mnt Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sdc1 61M 5.3M 53M 10% /mnt Regards, Bryn.