From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 11 11:56:33 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA53E106564A for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:56:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mh@kernel32.de) Received: from crivens.kernel32.de (crivens.asm68k.org [81.169.171.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CF98FC0C for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:56:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mh@kernel32.de) Received: from www.terrorteam.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by crivens.kernel32.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B192B02EF; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:37:44 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:37:44 +0100 From: Marian Hettwer To: Ruben de Groot In-Reply-To: <20081111105530.GA94707@ei.bzerk.org> References: <20081111105530.GA94707@ei.bzerk.org> Message-ID: <91810ad3ecdde97481e5806afd5a5dc7@localhost> X-Sender: mh@kernel32.de User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1-rc2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Willem Jan Withagen , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: du and df don't agree X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:56:33 -0000 On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:55:30 +0100, Ruben de Groot wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:22:42AM +0100, Willem Jan Withagen typed: >> Ruben de Groot wrote: >> >On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:21:11PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein typed: >> >>On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:01:00AM -0500, Stephen Clark wrote: >> >> >> >>>Why would du show 630k used by /tmp while df show 161M used >> >>>by /tmp? >> >>> >> >>>I have run fstat /tmp and can't find any files that are using >> >>>the space that df is claiming as being used. >> >>You need lsof +aL1 /tmp to see an answer. >> > >> >Please don't advise people to install third party apps (lsof) where >> >base system tools (fstat) can do the job. >> >> Why not? > > Because it gives the impression the base system is incomplete, which it is > not, > at least not in this situation. The wording "you need lsof" is plain > wrong. > What about proposing both? As in use fstat from BASE or use lsof from ports. IMO it's good to know that there are several tools which solves your problem. As an example from real world. I love using "sockstat -4" on FreeBSD, but I'm annoyed that it doesn't exist in OpenBSD and it doesn't exist in Debian either. So I'm used to use "netstat -tulpen" on Debian, but that won't work on FreeBSD. Anyway, since I know both ways, I find my way in both systems. Summary: Good to know alternatives. ./Marian