Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:47:55 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Strange ZFS problem, filesystem claims to be full when clearly not full Message-ID: <4CA4B12B.7050307@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20100930144845.GA19926@icarus.home.lan> References: <4CA45444.6070002@dannysplace.net> <201009301438.o8UEckoY019473@lurza.secnetix.de> <20100930144845.GA19926@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 30/09/2010 17:48 Jeremy Chadwick said the following: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 04:38:46PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: >> Danny Carroll <fbsd@dannysplace.net> wrote: >> > [...] >> > It certainly smells like a process still writing to a file that is unlinked. >> > I wonder if it would show up with lsof. >> >> If it's a file that was unlinked that is still held open by >> a process, then lsof will definitely list it. The command >> >> # lsof +L1 >> >> lists all open files with a link count of zero. You can >> restrict it to a certain file system like this: >> >> # lsof +aL1 /var >> >> Of course, lsof won't list the file name because the file >> doesn't have a name anymore. But it lists the process by >> name, PID and user, the file system and the file size. > > 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. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CA4B12B.7050307>