Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 15:11:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: large ufs2 partitions and 'df' Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0305111502420.4662-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200305112138.h4BLcVTh036013@beastie.mckusick.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 11 May 2003, Kirk McKusick wrote:
> I think that we should use merge the two spares at the start of the
> structure into a 64-bit f_bfree field. Rename the existing f_bfree
> to f_old_bfree and set it to the same value as f_bfree if it will fit,
> otherwise the largest number that will fit (ox7fffffff). Similarly,
> take the two spare longs at the end and merge them into a 64-bit
> b_avail field. Rename f_bavail to f_old_bavail and set as with
> f_old_bfree. Those are the only two fields that need to grow, and
> this will provide binary compatibility for existing applications.
> Seem reasonable?
It would be a good idea except that there is only one spare long
at the start of the structure.. its name is f_spare2 but it is only
one long in length.
I think that swithing to a new syscall with a fixed structure
and using the rules you mention above to populate the structure in an
ostatfs call might be the best answer.
Old binaries probably only need to know that there is > X blocks free
and not necessarily the correct number.
New binaries can use the new syscall.
>
> Kirk McKusick
>
> =-=-=-=-=
>
> Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 15:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>
> cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
> Subject: large ufs2 partitions and 'df'
> X-ASK-Info: Whitelist match
>
> Kirk, with the advent of UFS2 filesystems > 2TB
> what do you think we need to do about the statfs structure in mount.h?
>
> struct statfs {
> long f_spare2; /* placeholder */
> long f_bsize; /* fundamental filesystem block size */
> long f_iosize; /* optimal transfer block size */
> long f_blocks; /* total data blocks in filesystem */
> long f_bfree; /* free blocks in fs */
> [...]
>
> note:
> biggie# df
> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
> /dev/da1s1a 128990 72192 46480 61% /
> devfs 1 1 0 100% /dev
> /dev/da1s1f 257998 254 237106 0% /tmp
> [...]
> procfs 4 4 0 100% /proc
> /dev/da2p1 -2125157230 71722434 1924502828 4% /junk
> biggie# dumpfs /dev/da2p1 |more
> magic 19540119 (UFS2) time Tue May 6 17:48:43 2003
> superblock location 65536 id [ 3eb83524 bb0b0d56 ]
> ncg 11906 size 1120146927 blocks 1084905033
> bsize 16384 shift 14 mask 0xffffc000
> fsize 2048 shift 11 mask 0xfffff800
> frag 8 shift 3 fsbtodb 2
> minfree 8% optim time symlinklen 120
> maxbsize 16384 maxbpg 2048 maxcontig 8 contigsumsize 8
> nbfree 131130475 ndir 1 nifree 280410108 nffree
> 16
> bpg 11761 fpg 94088 ipg 23552
> nindir 2048 inopb 64 maxfilesize 140806241583103
> sbsize 2048 cgsize 16384 csaddr 3000 cssize 192512
> sblkno 40 cblkno 48 iblkno 56 dblkno 3000
> cgrotor 2188 fmod 0 ronly 0 clean 0
> flags none
> fsmnt /junk
> volname swuid 0
>
>
> In this case it is purely a printing error in sf I think, as the number
> of free frags is 2^30.
> but that will probably overflow on the next version of this box.
> (at least become -ve)
>
> Should we define a new entrypoint for fstat() and what should the old
> entrypoint return for partitions that are > 2^32 frags in size?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0305111502420.4662-100000>