Serious problem with potato
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
Reply to: