From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Mon Dec 26 17:21:20 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B4BC92A55 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:21:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from land.berklix.org (land.berklix.org [144.76.10.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC4521164 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:21:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from mart.js.berklix.net (p5B2263FD.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [91.34.99.253]) (authenticated bits=128) by land.berklix.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPA id uBQHLGwL069537 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:21:16 GMT (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from fire.js.berklix.net (fire.js.berklix.net [192.168.91.41]) by mart.js.berklix.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id uBQHLBb5077399 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2016 18:21:11 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from fire.js.berklix.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fire.js.berklix.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id uBQHKxcJ056264 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2016 18:21:11 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Message-Id: <201612261721.uBQHKxcJ056264@fire.js.berklix.net> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: when ufs is 99% full, current seems to limit creat to 28672 bytes From: "Julian H. Stacey" Organization: http://berklix.eu BSD Unix Linux Consultants, Munich Germany User-agent: EXMH on FreeBSD http://berklix.eu/free/ X-From: http://www.berklix.eu/~jhs/ In-reply-to: Your message "Sun, 25 Dec 2016 11:11:48 +0100." <20161225111148.6ee769b8@ernst.home> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 18:20:59 +0100 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:21:20 -0000 Gary J wrote: > I suspect this ia a result of how UFS is designed. Yes. > Did you use the > standard options for block and fragment size? How about inodes? Yes, I created that partition years ago, I pretty much always just use newfs unless experimenting perhaps for a small partition on USB stick or CDROM (& then I'd normally delete), so it would have been a newfs almost guaranteed with no parameters, default. > Is the file system UFS1 or UFS2? UFS2 > UFS is a very compex bit of software and I imagine there are all > kinds of interesting surprises when the file system is 99% full. > > Anyway, the newfs man page may provide some clues. Or look at > Wikipedia, there's a UFS entry there, but it doesn't go into the gorey > details. I'll read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_File_System Konstantin B wrote > dumpfs(8) allows to look at .... Top of dumpfs: magic 19540119 (UFS2) time Sun Dec 25 03:19:13 2016 superblock location 65536 id [ 548daf7f b34ae147 ] ncg 1399 size 224197115 blocks 217157317 bsize 32768 shift 15 mask 0xffff8000 fsize 4096 shift 12 mask 0xfffff000 frag 8 shift 3 fsbtodb 3 minfree 0% optim space symlinklen 120 maxbsize 32768 maxbpg 4096 maxcontig 4 contigsumsize 4 nbfree 0 ndir 1555427 nifree 102683126 nffree 1339169 bpg 20035 fpg 160280 ipg 80256 unrefs 0 nindir 4096 inopb 128 maxfilesize 2252349704110079 sbsize 4096 cgsize 32768 csaddr 5056 cssize 24576 sblkno 24 cblkno 32 iblkno 40 dblkno 5056 cgrotor 622 fmod 0 ronly 0 clean 1 metaspace 6408 avgfpdir 64 avgfilesize 16384 flags soft-updates fsmnt /data volname swuid 0 providersize 224197115 Thanks All, Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Linux Unix Sys Eng Consultant Munich Reply below, Prefix '> '. Plain text, No .doc, base64, HTML, quoted-printable. http://berklix.eu/brexit/#stolen_votes