Hi all, I stumbled over a curious thing. The Linux tools "df" and "du" aren't working correctly on an OCFS2 filesystem. "df" shows approx. twice the size as there is on the volume. Here how I found out about this issue: - same dir(a few files more in OCFS but the files are ca. 12 kB in size), first on XFS second on the OCFS volume # du -ms /mnt/user/small/kl/ 439 /mnt/user/small/kl/ # du -ms ~wkw/data/user/small/kl/ 27 /web/wkw/data/user/small/kl/ - file size on OCFS2 # du -ks /mnt/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg 64 11zzzzwa1.jpg # ls -lh /mnt/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg 2,4K 11zzzzwa1.jpg - same file on XFS # ls -lh /data/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg 2,4K /data/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg # md5sum ~wkw/data/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg d49c626360a37de9134ddc0ed31b1f59 /web/wkw/data/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg # md5sum /mnt/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg d49c626360a37de9134ddc0ed31b1f59 11zzzzwa1.jpg Following versions we use: Kernel: Vanilla Debian Kernel 2.6.25-2-amd64 # modinfo ocfs2 description: OCFS2 1.5.0 version: 1.5.0 vermagic: 2.6.25-2-amd64 SMP mod_unload # dpkg -s ocfs2-tools | grep ^Vers Version: 1.2.4-1.2 The OCFS2 has been created with "-T mail -N 2". Can anyone explain why there is this big difference between "du" and "ls"? Currently we can't rely on "df/du" to give us correct information about the disk usage. Maybe this problem is with the "df" version so I post the version number here too: # dpkg -s coreutils | grep ^Vers Version: 5.97-5.3 Regards, Markus Meyer
Email me the following info: $ debugfs.ocfs2 -R "stats" /dev/sdX <== replace with ocfs2 device $ stat /mnt/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg $ stat /data/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg Markus Meyer wrote:> Hi all, > > I stumbled over a curious thing. The Linux tools "df" and "du" aren't > working correctly on an OCFS2 filesystem. "df" shows approx. twice the > size as there is on the volume. > Here how I found out about this issue: > > - same dir(a few files more in OCFS but the files are ca. 12 kB in > size), first on XFS second on the OCFS volume > > # du -ms /mnt/user/small/kl/ > 439 /mnt/user/small/kl/ > # du -ms ~wkw/data/user/small/kl/ > 27 /web/wkw/data/user/small/kl/ > > - file size on OCFS2 > # du -ks /mnt/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg > 64 11zzzzwa1.jpg > # ls -lh /mnt/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg > 2,4K 11zzzzwa1.jpg > - same file on XFS > # ls -lh /data/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg > 2,4K /data/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg > > # md5sum ~wkw/data/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg > d49c626360a37de9134ddc0ed31b1f59 /web/wkw/data/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg > # md5sum /mnt/user/small/11/11zzzzwa1.jpg > d49c626360a37de9134ddc0ed31b1f59 11zzzzwa1.jpg > > Following versions we use: > Kernel: Vanilla Debian Kernel 2.6.25-2-amd64 > # modinfo ocfs2 > description: OCFS2 1.5.0 > version: 1.5.0 > vermagic: 2.6.25-2-amd64 SMP mod_unload > # dpkg -s ocfs2-tools | grep ^Vers > Version: 1.2.4-1.2 > > The OCFS2 has been created with "-T mail -N 2". > > Can anyone explain why there is this big difference between "du" and > "ls"? Currently we can't rely on "df/du" to give us correct information > about the disk usage. Maybe this problem is with the "df" version so I > post the version number here too: > # dpkg -s coreutils | grep ^Vers > Version: 5.97-5.3 > > > > Regards, > > Markus Meyer > > > _______________________________________________ > Ocfs2-users mailing list > Ocfs2-users at oss.oracle.com > http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users >