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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).