>Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 18:01:11 +1000 >From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy_at_optushome.com.au> >To: current_at_freebsd.org >Subject: 5.3-BETA2 df(1) reports incorrect values for UFS1 FS >Sender: owner-freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org >On a 4.10 system, my /home reports as: >Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity iused ifree %iused Mounted on >/dev/ad0s3g 86710002 71758104 8015098 90% 1803049 9038549 17% /home >When I mount it on a 5.3-BETA2 system, I get: >Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity iused ifree %iused Mounted on >/dev/ad0s3g 86710002 1929924 77843278 2% 70983 10770615 1% /home Odd.... >This is somewhat disconcerting. As far as I can tell, all the files are >there but 5.3 doesn't realise it. >fsck on 5.3 reports no errors and: >1803048 files, 35879051 used, 42390039 free (1903 frags, 5298517 blocks, 0.0% fragmentation) >fsck on 4.10 reports no errors and: >1803048 files, 35879051 used, 7475950 free (390462 frags, 885656 blocks, 0.9% fragmentation) Hmmm... >Any ideas what is wrong with 5.3? More critically, is it safe to write >to a UFS1 filesystem with 5.3? Although it might be considered risky, each system where I run 5.x is set up so that: * Each file system backed by its own partitin (within a slice) is UFS1. This way, I can mount each of them while running 4.x and do repair work, for example. * The system multi-boots FreeBSD, and I do most of my work on 4.x (at this time). (My "production" systems run snapshots of 4.x that I build every couple of weeks.) * I track each of RELENG_4 and RELENG_5 (was HEAD before RELENG_5 was tagged) on a daily basis (unless "cvs update" shows no changes to the sources in question since last time). I am not seeing the problems you report. In particular, here's my build machine (the laptop is still doing this morning's "make buildworld" for RELENG_5, so it won't be done for a while): First, RELENG_5, freshly built: freebeast(5.3)[1] uname -a FreeBSD freebeast.catwhisker.org 5.3-BETA3 FreeBSD 5.3-BETA3 #14: Sat Sep 4 07:26:33 PDT 2004 root_at_freebeast.catwhisker.org:/common/S3/obj/usr/src/sys/FREEBEAST i386 freebeast(5.3)[2] df -ki Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity iused ifree %iused Mounted on /dev/ad0s3a 158767 108172 37894 74% 3909 36025 10% / devfs 1 1 0 100% 0 0 100% /dev /dev/ad0s3e 1873113 913919 809345 53% 87517 383073 19% /usr /dev/ad0s4h 27728233 14294775 11215200 56% 862175 6087263 12% /common /dev/ad0s4g 2032839 425583 1444629 23% 47282 461068 9% /var procfs 4 4 0 100% 1 0 100% /proc /dev/md0 507630 8 467012 0% 5 65785 0% /tmp freebeast(5.3)[3] And here's RELENG_4: freebeast(4.10-S)[1] uname -a FreeBSD freebeast.catwhisker.org 4.10-STABLE FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE #987: Fri Sep 3 05:26:57 PDT 2004 root_at_freebeast.catwhisker.org:/common/S1/obj/usr/src/sys/FREEBEAST i386 freebeast(4.10-S)[2] df -ki Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity iused ifree %iused Mounted on /dev/ad0s1a 158767 47187 98879 32% 1902 38032 5% / mfs:25 515606 6 474352 0% 4 64506 0% /tmp /dev/ad0s1e 1873082 1009417 713819 59% 90564 380026 19% /usr /dev/ad0s2a 158767 47187 98879 32% 1902 38032 5% /S2 /dev/ad0s2e 1873113 946906 776358 55% 87586 383004 19% /S2/usr /dev/ad0s3a 158767 108172 37894 74% 3909 36025 10% /S3 /dev/ad0s3e 1873113 913919 809345 53% 87517 383073 19% /S3/usr /dev/ad0s4a 158767 108249 37817 74% 3909 36025 10% /S4 /dev/ad0s4e 1872759 910011 812928 53% 84059 386531 18% /S4/usr /dev/ad0s4h 27728233 14294777 11215198 56% 862176 6087262 12% /common /dev/ad0s4g 2032839 425642 1444570 23% 47278 461072 9% /var procfs 4 4 0 100% 50 4034 1% /proc freebeast(4.10-S)[3] (You may see that more file systems show up under RELENG_4. I do not mount the RELENG_4 file systems necessary for running the system by default when booting 5.x or higher.) As noted, I have not had the problems you are reporting. The last issue I recall was something that was committed to fsck (iirC) by Matt Dillon (to avoid a 4.x fsck seeing a superblock updated by a 5.x fsck as broken). As implied by the committer, that wa a while back. Peace, david -- David H. Wolfskill david_at_catwhisker.org Evidence of curmudgeonliness: becoming irritated with the usage of the word "speed" in contexts referring to quantification of network performance, as opposed to "bandwidth" or "latency."Received on Sat Sep 04 2004 - 13:02:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:10 UTC