From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 30 17:08:17 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 552A6106566B for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:08:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [IPv6:2a01:170:102f::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E668FC19 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:08:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8UH807Q026169; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:08:15 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o8UH7xAs026168; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:07:59 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:07:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <201009301707.o8UH7xAs026168@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, Jeremy Chadwick , Andriy Gapon In-Reply-To: <4CA4B12B.7050307@icyb.net.ua> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-fs User-Agent: tin/1.8.3-20070201 ("Scotasay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/6.4-PRERELEASE-20080904 (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.5 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:08:15 +0200 (CEST) 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 Reply-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, Jeremy Chadwick , Andriy Gapon List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:08:17 -0000 Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 30/09/2010 17:48 Jeremy Chadwick said the following: > > 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? > > I believe that there is no reason to prefer lsof except for those who spent more > time with Linux than with FreeBSD. Last time I had a try at fstat(1), it wasn't able to print actual file names, while lsof was able to do it. That's why I generally prefer lsof over fstat(1). For most of my needs fstat(1) is useless if it can't display file names. (I think DragonFly's fstat(1) can do it, FWIW.) Of course, in this particular case it might be irrelevant because the files in questions don't have names anymore. On the other hand, I'm not sure how to use fstat(1) to identify files with link count zero ... I'm looking at the manpage, but maybe it's just too late in the evening. What command line would you suggest, exactly? At least it doesn't seem to be as easy as "lsof +L1". Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd It's trivial to make fun of Microsoft products, but it takes a real man to make them work, and a God to make them do anything useful.