From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ia0-x234.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c02::234]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1U2Pr1-0007M0-UZ for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 17:29:16 +0000 Received: by mail-ia0-f180.google.com with SMTP id f27so8237536iae.25 for ; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:29:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <510FEFE2.3060704@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 22:59:06 +0530 From: Vikram Narayanan MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dedekind1@gmail.com Subject: Re: UBIFS space consumption References: <50F97E6C.7030201@gmail.com> <1359961435.13791.4.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1359961435.13791.4.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 2/4/2013 12:33 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Fri, 2013-01-18 at 22:25 +0530, Vikram Narayanan wrote: >> But according to "df", UBI volume 0 is sized 148.9 MiB. That's, 15.8 >> MiB more in terms of consumption. > > Df is not accurate with UBIFS by design, this is covered by this FAQ > entry: > > http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/faq/ubifs.html#L_df_report > Sorry, I think you've mistaken my question. I've referred the above FAQ before framing this mail. The above FAQ explains why the _free_ space shown by 'df' isn't accurate. I'm concerned here about the _total_ size shown to me by df, which is less than what is reported by ubinfo. Thanks, Vikram