Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:39:02 +0100 From: Freminlins <freminlins@gmail.com> To: Jerry McAllister <jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu> Cc: Lei Sun <lei.sun@gmail.com>, questions@freebsd.org, cpghost <cpghost@cordula.ws>, Glenn Dawson <glenn@antimatter.net> Subject: Re: disk fragmentation, <0%? Message-ID: <eeef1a4c05081506391b6fbb2f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200508151320.j7FDKCVq025507@clunix.cl.msu.edu> References: <d396fddf05081421343aeded9d@mail.gmail.com> <200508151320.j7FDKCVq025507@clunix.cl.msu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/15/05, Jerry McAllister <jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu> wrote: > > > As someone mentioned, there is a FAQ on this. You should read it. >=20 > It is going negative because you have used more than the nominal > capacity of the slice. The nominal capacity is the total space > minus the reserved proportion (usually 8%) that is held out. > Root is able to write to that space and you have done something > that got root to write beyond the nominal space. I'm not sure you are right in this case. I think you need to re-read the post. I've quoted the relevent part here: =20 > > Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on > > /dev/ar0s1e 248M -278K 228M -0% /tmp Looking at how the columns line up I have to state that I too have never seen this behaviour. As an experiment I over-filled a file system and here's the results: Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ad0s1f 965M 895M -7.4M 101% /tmp Note capacity is not negative. So that makes three of us in this thread who have not seen negative capacity on UFS. I have seen negative capacity when running an old version of FreeBSD with a very large NFS mount (not enough bits in statfs if I remember correctly). > ////jerry Frem.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?eeef1a4c05081506391b6fbb2f>