Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:57:54 -0500 From: "Zaphod Beeblebrox" <zbeeble@gmail.com> To: ticso@cicely.de Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS filesystem size anomaly... Message-ID: <5f67a8c40812040957h8d90b26t5092fa68c76bafb8@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20081203083734.GC71750@cicely7.cicely.de> References: <5f67a8c40812021504p1d67fde1x3d9a9ef8d7214dfc@mail.gmail.com> <20081203083734.GC71750@cicely7.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely7.cicely.de>wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 06:04:21PM -0500, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > > This is all with ZFS version 6 in FreeBSD-7.1-RC, fyi... > > > > I have a machine with the ports tree mounted in ZFS right out of the > > examples: > > > > [3:75:375]root@canoe:/usr/ports> zfs list | grep ports > > canoe/ports 3.54G 66.6G 2.35G /usr/ports > > canoe/ports/distfiles 1.19G 66.6G 1.19G > > /usr/ports/distfiles > > > > ... but the sizes here are curious. 1.2G for distfiles is about > correct... > > but 2.35G for the rest of ports is unreasonable. > > It always includes the subvolumes. > So just canoe/ports alone is 2.35G - 1.19G. > You can get more details with "zfs get all canoe/ports". Yes... I understand that. There is a 2G discrepancy. Du on distfiles agrees --- 1.2G vs. 1.19. Du on ports says 1.6G --- including the 1.2 gig in distfiles. That means that du thinks that ports itself is 0.4 Gig, not 2.35 Gig.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5f67a8c40812040957h8d90b26t5092fa68c76bafb8>