Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 22:47:23 +0200 From: boink <lordboink@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org Subject: Re: Ignorant user overfilled /usr; strange errors followed. Fixed with fsck -y, but what exactly happened? Message-ID: <73cb07950605181347n1ec17f46pf53bb3368e305389@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <44k68js8n7.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> References: <73cb07950605171612x5f2ea0f9vd4f8b297d5c1a5c6@mail.gmail.com> <44k68js8n7.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18/05/06, Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> wrote= : > boink <lordboink@gmail.com> writes: 8<... > > My questions are these: > > - How could /usr have been at 108%, given that 100% is the logical maxi= mum? > > Because that *isn't* a given. > See the FAQ entry on "How is it possible for a partition to be more > than 100% full?" > > > - Is there any risk that a physically adjacent filesystem be > > damaged? > > No. Furthermore, it's unlikely that your /usr was actually damaged, > either. Don't run fsck on a live filesystem; of *course* it will > always find "errors." > > > - How can it be that, immediately following the deletion of > > /usr/ports/ktrace.out, I still had errors *at all* (prior to the > > fsck)? > > See the FAQ entry on "The du and df commands show different amounts of > disk space available. What is going on?" That describes what you > probably should have done instead of the fsck. > > > - Given its recent history, can I now trust the integrity of /usr? > > Probably. But you may have messed it up with the fsck, so just to be > sure, go into single-user mode, umount /usr, and fsck it WHILE IT IS > NOT MOUNTED. > > > My interpretation of the situation is that following the deletion of > > /usr/ports/ktrace.out, KDE, on startup, tried to write a file to a > > filesystem that apparently (although incorrectly) had no free blocks. > > fsck fixed the problem of the reported free blocks. > > More or less. But since the kernel's idea of what was on the disk > no longer matched reality (i.e., it knew that in reality there *were* no > free blocks), you may have gotten into trouble. > > > However, if this interpretation is correct, it shouldn't have worked > > *at all* until fsck had repaired the filesystem. That is, KDE should > > not have started at all. > > That doesn't necessarily follow. > > > So, prior to the fsck -y in single-user mode, what was happening in > > the five minutes it took KDE to start? > > I don't know KDE at all, but my guess would be some kind of timeout. > Lowell, Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I omitted to mention that I had rebooted into single user mode prior to running fsck, so /usr was not in fact mounted when fsck was run. The du/df FAQ is interesting, and non-obvious, as is FAQ 9.26. (How is it possible for a partition to be more than 100% full?), which explains why the quoted disk usage was 108%. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/disks.html. Thanks again, boink
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?73cb07950605181347n1ec17f46pf53bb3368e305389>