[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Serious problem with potato



the problem is your mounting /usr/local before /usr

change that ....i dont know if any data will be lost..but you must
always
mount lower level stuff first.

nate

"S.Salman Ahmed" wrote:
> 
> I just installed potato using the 2.2r2 boot floppies. The problem I am
> having is that the output of 'du' and 'df' does not agree. Specifically,
> even though I created a 2.5Gb /usr/local/ partition on which I haven't
> currently installed any SW, here is what df says about it:
> 
> ssahmed@viper:~$ df
> Filesystem           1k-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
> /dev/hda1               233336     13023    208266   6% /
> /dev/hda5              2403420    490220   1791108  21% /usr/local
> /dev/hda6              2403420    490220   1791108  21% /usr
> /dev/hda7              1929068       160   1830916   0% /home
> /dev/hda10              381139    200719    160742  56% /var
> /dev/hda11              303344        62    287621   0% /tmp
> ssahmed@viper:~$ df -h
> Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/hda1             228M   13M  203M   6% /
> /dev/hda5             2.3G  479M  1.7G  21% /usr/local
> /dev/hda6             2.3G  479M  1.7G  21% /usr
> /dev/hda7             1.8G  160k  1.7G   0% /home
> /dev/hda10            372M  196M  157M  56% /var
> /dev/hda11            296M   62k  281M   0% /tmp
> 
> Why do '/usr' and '/usr/local' have the *exact* same usage even though
> nothing has been installed on /usr/local as yet. And even though 'du'
> reports a completely different result.
> 
> 'du -h /usr/local' produces different results:
> 
> ssahmed@viper:~$ du -h /usr/local/
> 4.0k    /usr/local/share/emacs/site-lisp
> 4.0k    /usr/local/share/emacs/20.7/site-lisp
> 8.0k    /usr/local/share/emacs/20.7
> 16k     /usr/local/share/emacs
> 20k     /usr/local/share
> 4.0k    /usr/local/bin
> 4.0k    /usr/local/man
> 4.0k    /usr/local/lib/site_perl/i386-linux
> 8.0k    /usr/local/lib/site_perl
> 4.0k    /usr/local/lib/texmf/doc
> 8.0k    /usr/local/lib/texmf
> 4.0k    /usr/local/lib/ghostscript/common
> 4.0k    /usr/local/lib/ghostscript/5.10
> 4.0k    /usr/local/lib/ghostscript/fonts
> 16k     /usr/local/lib/ghostscript
> 4.0k    /usr/local/lib/python1.5/site-packages
> 8.0k    /usr/local/lib/python1.5
> 4.0k    /usr/local/lib/site-python
> 4.0k    /usr/local/lib/xemacs/site-lisp
> 8.0k    /usr/local/lib/xemacs
> 56k     /usr/local/lib
> 4.0k    /usr/local/include
> 4.0k    /usr/local/sbin
> 4.0k    /usr/local/src
> 100k    /usr/local
> 
> Can someone explain to me why there is this incredible discrepancy
> between the disk usage reported by df and the disk usage reported by du
> ? I had this problem with my last installation of Debian but I thought
> it might have something to do with the fact that I was running
> woody. This time, I am running potato, fresh off an install.
> 
> Partition info is as follows:
> 
> # /etc/fstab: static file system information.
> #
> # <file system> <mount point>   <type>  <options>                       <dump>  <pass>
> /dev/hdc1       /               ext2    defaults,errors=remount-ro      0       1
> /dev/hdc5       none            swap    sw,pri=3                        0       0
> /dev/hdc6       none            swap    sw,pri=3                        0       0
> proc            /proc           proc    defaults                        0       0
> /dev/fd0        /floppy         auto    defaults,user,noauto            0       0
> /dev/cdrom      /cdrom          iso9660 defaults,ro,user,noauto         0       0
> /dev/hdc7       /tmp            ext2    rw                              0       2
> /dev/hdc8       /home           ext2    rw                              0       2
> /dev/hdc9       /usr/local      ext2    rw                              0       2
> /dev/hdc10      /var            ext2    rw                              0       2
> /dev/hdc11      /usr            ext2    rw                              0       2
> /dev/hdc3       /backup         ext2    rw                              0       2
> 
> My HD is a Maxtor 20Gb UDMA HD. Here is some output from dmesg:
> 
> PCI_IDE: unknown IDE controller on PCI bus 00 device f9, VID=8086, DID=244b
> PCI_IDE: not 100% native mode: will probe irqs later
>     ide0: BM-DMA at 0xb800-0xb807, BIOS settings: hda:DMA, hdb:pio
>     ide1: BM-DMA at 0xb808-0xb80f, BIOS settings: hdc:DMA, hdd:DMA
> hda: Maxtor 52049H4, ATA DISK drive
> hdc: YAMAHA CRW2100E, ATAPI CDROM drive
> hdd: CREATIVE CD5233E, ATAPI CDROM drive
> ide0 at 0x1f0-0x1f7,0x3f6 on irq 14
> ide1 at 0x170-0x177,0x376 on irq 15
> hda: Maxtor 52049H4, 19541MB w/2048kB Cache, CHS=2491/255/63
> hdc: ATAPI 40X CD-ROM CD-R/RW drive, 8192kB Cache
> Uniform CD-ROM driver Revision: 3.11
> hdd: ATAPI 52X CD-ROM drive, 128kB Cache
> 
> During the install, as each partition was being installed, I selected
> the options to:
> 
>     - not retain kernel 2.0 compatibility
>     - perform a bad block check on each partition
>     - format each partition
> 
> No bad blocks were reported. This is a brand new HD on a brand new
> system, both of which are approx. 3 weeks old. My system is a PIII on an
> ASUS CUSL2 motherboard w/256Mb RAM.
> 
> BTW, I am experiencing the same thing on another Debian box (older HW)
> which is running woody kernel-2.2.17. This current system is running
> potato (2.2r2) and the kernel version is:
> 
> Linux viper 2.2.18pre21-compact #1 Sat Nov 18 09:23:46 MST 2000 i686 unknown
> 
> I'd appreciate any information, as I'd like to know what the problem
> is. If its a HW/HD problem, or what.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --
> Salman Ahmed
> ssahmed AT pathcom DOT com
> 
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

-- 
:::
ICQ: 75132336
http://www.aphroland.org/
http://www.linuxpowered.net/
aphro@aphroland.org



Reply to: