From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 30 14:48:47 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A89F1065672 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:48:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdc@koitsu.dyndns.org) Received: from qmta02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.24]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 409F48FC0A for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:48:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.36]) by qmta02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id CzPr1f0040mlR8UA22omu2; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:48:46 +0000 Received: from koitsu.dyndns.org ([98.248.41.155]) by omta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id D2ol1f00U3LrwQ28X2olLh; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:48:46 +0000 Received: by icarus.home.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5A82E9B418; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 07:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 07:48:45 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, fbsd@dannysplace.net, torbjoern@gmail.com Message-ID: <20100930144845.GA19926@icarus.home.lan> References: <4CA45444.6070002@dannysplace.net> <201009301438.o8UEckoY019473@lurza.secnetix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201009301438.o8UEckoY019473@lurza.secnetix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Subject: Re: Strange ZFS problem, filesystem claims to be full when clearly not full 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: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:48:47 -0000 On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 04:38:46PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Danny Carroll wrote: > > [...] > > It certainly smells like a process still writing to a file that is unlinked. > > I wonder if it would show up with lsof. > > If it's a file that was unlinked that is still held open by > a process, then lsof will definitely list it. The command > > # lsof +L1 > > lists all open files with a link count of zero. You can > restrict it to a certain file system like this: > > # lsof +aL1 /var > > Of course, lsof won't list the file name because the file > doesn't have a name anymore. But it lists the process by > name, PID and user, the file system and the file size. Can someone explain how use of lsof in this regard is different than use of fstat(1) like I originally mentioned? Does lsof do something more thorough or differently that what fstat does? -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc@parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |