From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: Zachary Mark <zmark@cleversafe.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Discrepancy in 'df' output between kernel 3.0 and 3.2 for ext4?
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:00:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FDA34CD.9070404@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FD8DB86.8030603@redhat.com>
On 6/13/12 1:27 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 6/13/12 1:08 PM, Zachary Mark wrote:
>> Ext4 developers,
>>
>> I recently upgraded my kernel from 3.0.24 to 3.2.18, and discovered
>> that df is now reporting different statistics for my ext4 file
>> systems (sda1 is ext3 and unaffected). Notice the difference
>> between the 1K-blocks column and Used column between kernel
>> versions (Available remains constant, as it is merely Used
>> subtracted from the total size):
...
>> Is this discrepancy between the df outputs on the two kernel versions
>> expected given my mount options? I decided to come to the list
>> because I don't have the technical depth with regard to ext4 to be
>> able to analyze the ext4_statfs changes that went into making
>> bigalloc work, and I haven't found any reports of similar symptoms
>> via web searches or the Documentation/filesystems/ext4.txt. This is
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830412 just came in and is probably the same root cause.
>
> Thanks for the bisect! I'll let Ted worry about it for now, at least until I have more time.
Ted, one thing that seems very weird to me. When using BSD-style df, which is supposed to ignore basic metadata overhead, shouldn't a freshly mkfs'd filesystem always show free blocks == total blocks? It doesn't do that either before or after your changes, which seems odd to me. Am I misunderstanding what "bsddf" is supposed to do?
-eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-14 19:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-13 18:08 Discrepancy in 'df' output between kernel 3.0 and 3.2 for ext4? Zachary Mark
2012-06-13 18:27 ` Eric Sandeen
2012-06-13 22:21 ` Zachary Mark
2012-06-14 19:00 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2012-06-18 21:45 ` [PATCH 0/2] " Theodore Ts'o
2012-06-18 21:45 ` [PATCH 1/2] ext4: pass a char * to ext4_count_free() instead of a buffer_head ptr Theodore Ts'o
2012-06-18 21:45 ` [PATCH 2/2] ext4: fix overhead calculation used by ext4_statfs() Theodore Ts'o
2012-06-19 19:54 ` [PATCH 0/2] Re: Discrepancy in 'df' output between kernel 3.0 and 3.2 for ext4? Zachary Mark
2012-06-19 20:13 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-06-19 21:01 ` Zachary Mark
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4FDA34CD.9070404@redhat.com \
--to=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zmark@cleversafe.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.