From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 5 23:22:56 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF6A16A4CE for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:22:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (c211-30-75-229.belrs2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.75.229]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496C143D48 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:22:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (localhost.alcatel.com.au [127.0.0.1])i167Moe3034558; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:22:50 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from jeremyp@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au) Received: (from jeremyp@localhost)i167Mj0q034557; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:22:45 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from jeremyp) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:22:44 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy To: Harald Schmalzbauer Message-ID: <20040206072244.GT908@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <200402051908.09836@harrymail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200402051908.09836@harrymail> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: How to calculate bsdlabel size X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 07:22:57 -0000 On Wednesday 04 February 2004 21:31, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: > I manually created disklabels with a size number of 10485760. > I wanted to have 5 GigaByte big labels, so 5*1024*1024*1024/512=10485760. > Now after doing a newfs and mounting the new label, df -h reports a size > of 4.8GB. > Can someone please enlighten me? Which df column? If you're concerned about "missing" blocks, what does "df -b" or "df -k" report? What parameters did you use for newfs? You can expect to lose 3-5% of disk space for metadata overheads. Each inode taken 256 bytes and each cylinder group takes several FS blocks. If you want to fit 5GB of data onto a filesystem, you're going to need to allocate something like 5.2GB of disk space. >But it's not my problem. What you mean results in limited available space, > but doesn't have any influence on Size summary. Btw I did a newfs with -m 0 > so it can't be the reaseon. This is strongly non-recommended. The UFS algorithms are designed on the assumption that there are always free blocks. When you get below 5-10% free space, the performance will degrade significantly and you will start getting file fragmentation. Peter