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

Partition size discrepancy df v parted/cfdisk



Hi List

I've just reorganised the partitions on a second (Seagate) drive in
a dual booting Dell Dimension XPS T500 to give more room to /usr 
(to upgrade from woody to sid).

The partitions I messed with were /home, /usr and two swap.

/home was 35 Gb and /usr 1Gb 

Using parted I deleted home and created a new 5GB /usr partition and 
30Gb /home.  Once I'd amended fstab and copied the /usr file across, 
I deleted the old /usr and one swap partition to create a new bigger 
swap partition and increased the remaining swap partition.  All worked 
fine and I've subsequently upgraded to sid and everything is back as 
it should be.

However, df -h gives (showing /usr as 1Gb):

/dev/hdb2              92M   41M   47M  47% /
/dev/hdb9             958M  564M  346M  63% /usr
/dev/hdb6             958M  147M  763M  17% /var
/dev/hdb7             958M   80K  909M   1% /tmp
/dev/hdb10             29G   32M   28G   1% /home
tmpfs                 252M     0  252M   0% /dev/shm

whereas parted shows /usr (9) as about 5Gb:

2          0.031     94.130  primary   ext2
1         94.131  76316.594  extended              lba
5         94.162    651.071  logical   linux-swap
11       651.103   1427.651  logical   linux-swap
6       1427.682   2400.336  logical   ext2
7       2400.368   3373.022  logical   ext2
9       3373.053   8424.711  logical   ext2
10      8424.743  38421.079  logical   ext2
8      38421.110  76316.594  logical   fat32

and cfdisk also shows 5GB:

hdb2         Primary   Linux ext2    	98.71
hdb5         Logical   Linux swap	584.00
hdb11        Logical   Linux swap	814.31
hdb6         Logical   Linux ext2	1019.94
hdb7         Logical   Linux ext2	1019.94
hdb9         Logical   Linux ext2	5297.09
hdb10        Logical   Linux ext2    	31453.48
hdb8         Logical   W95   FAT32      39736.33

Any ideas?

"confused" of Crouch End ;)

-- 
http://www.clivemenzies.co.uk
strategies for business



Reply to: