From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 2 20:47:15 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC269106566C; Mon, 2 May 2011 20:47:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-annu.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-annu.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543468FC18; Mon, 2 May 2011 20:47:15 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwEABEYv02DaFvO/2dsb2JhbACEUaIziHGpWZBHgSqDVYEBBI55jj4 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,304,1301889600"; d="scan'208";a="119354736" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-annu-pri.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 02 May 2011 16:47:05 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24A7B3F54; Mon, 2 May 2011 16:47:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 16:47:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: Bruce Evans Message-ID: <1040257715.898126.1304369225601.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <20110503020940.N2001@besplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.201] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: rmacklem@FreeBSD.org, fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: newnfs client and statfs X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 20:47:15 -0000 > > > I'll try and make my Solaris10 box get to -ve frees and then see > > what > > it puts on the wire. After that, I'll start a discussion on > > freebsd-fs@ > > about how they think a FreeBSD server should behave when f_bavail > > and/or > > f_ffree are negative. > > The result on Solaris would be interesting. Does Solaris still support > ffs? You said later that you couldn't get it to generate negative > values. > Well, I just did the reverse (ran a FreeBSD FFS disk out of space so it reported a -ve free and mounted in on Solaris10). Here are the "df" outputs (I used "df -k" on Solaris, since that's a compatible format): FreeBSD-current server (nfsv4-newlap): Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ad4s3a 2026030 671492 1192456 36% / devfs 1 1 0 100% /dev /dev/ad4s3e 4697030 4544054 -222786 105% /sub1 /dev/ad4s3d 5077038 641462 4029414 14% /usr Solaris10 client: Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on /dev/dsk/c0d0s0 3870110 2790938 1040471 73% / /devices 0 0 0 0% /devices ctfs 0 0 0 0% /system/contract proc 0 0 0 0% /proc mnttab 0 0 0 0% /etc/mnttab swap 975736 624 975112 1% /etc/svc/volatile objfs 0 0 0 0% /system/object /usr/lib/libc/libc_hwcap1.so.1 3870110 2790938 1040471 73% /lib/libc.so.1 fd 0 0 0 0% /dev/fd swap 975112 0 975112 0% /tmp swap 975140 28 975112 1% /var/run /dev/dsk/c0d0s7 5608190 4118091 1434018 75% /export/home nfsv4-newlap:/sub1 4697030 4544054 18014398509259198 1% /mnt as you can see, Solaris10 doesn't assume it's negative and reports lottsa avail. I don't have a Linux client handy, so I can't do the same test with Linux, rick