Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>