Subject: Re: [Q] why 'df' and 'fsck' say differently?
To: Mamoru Yamanishi <yama@biotech.okayama-u.ac.jp>
From: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@loki.stanford.edu>
List: port-mac68k
Date: 08/04/1997 10:17:54
>
> Hi all.
>
> When I do 'df' to know the free space of my disk, it returns
> unexpected large values. REALY my disk have not so much files
> as 'df' says.
>
> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
> /dev/sd0a 504952 459598 -5142 101% /
> ..... and so on
>
> I assign only 65536 blocks, but 'df' says 504952 blocks.
Where did you only asign 65536 blocks?
The negative amount of free space reflects the fact you're doing
stuff as root. The "100%" level is really 90% of the disk..
> Then I do 'fsck', that returns reasonable number of files, used
> and free space.
>
> 368 files, 8824 used, 22679 free (39 frags, 2830 blocks, ...
>
> These error may be corrected by using 'newfs' on other partitions
> than /dev/sd0a. However root partition (/dev/sd0a) could never be
> 'umount'ed.
>
> My questions are:
>
> 1) Why 'df' and 'fsck' say different result?
>
> 2) How to correct it.
How big is the partition really? If you assigned 65536 8-k blocks, that
would be about 524288 1-k blocks, which might be reasonable for having
504952 after formatting. ??
You can't newfs the root partition. :-) You can, though, use the
Mac-side utilities.
Take care,
Bill