search for: linuxdf

...> is the default) is to subtract the overhead blocks used by the > ext2 filesystem and not available for file storage. > > You're seeing the latter behavior. if you mount with -o minixdf you should > see what you expect. (Too bad there's no "linuxdf?") :) > >> In gigabytes, it means: >> * for df, the disk is 12.33 GB >> * for tune2fs, the disk is 12.53 GB >> >> I thought that maybe df is only taking into account the real blocks >> available for users. So I tried to remove the reserved blocks and the...

...bsddf behaviour (which is the default) is to subtract the overhead blocks used by the ext2 filesystem and not available for file storage. You're seeing the latter behavior. if you mount with -o minixdf you should see what you expect. (Too bad there's no "linuxdf?") :) > In gigabytes, it means: > * for df, the disk is 12.33 GB > * for tune2fs, the disk is 12.53 GB > > I thought that maybe df is only taking into account the real blocks > available for users. So I tried to remove the reserved blocks and the > GDT blocks: > (328...

...is the default) is to subtract the overhead blocks used by the >> ext2 filesystem and not available for file storage. >> >> You're seeing the latter behavior. if you mount with -o minixdf you should >> see what you expect. (Too bad there's no "linuxdf?") :) >> >>> In gigabytes, it means: >>> * for df, the disk is 12.33 GB >>> * for tune2fs, the disk is 12.53 GB >>> >>> I thought that maybe df is only taking into account the real blocks >>> available for users. So I tried to remove...

Hello guys, I have some difficulties to understand what really are the numbers behing "df" and tune2fs. You'll find the output of tune2fs and df below, on which my maths are based. Here are my maths: A tune2fs on an ext3 FS tell me the FS size is 3284992 block large. It also tell me that the size of one block is 4096 (bytes if I'm not wrong?). So my maths tell me that the disk

...t) is to subtract the overhead blocks used by the >>> ext2 filesystem and not available for file storage. >>> >>> You're seeing the latter behavior. if you mount with -o minixdf you should >>> see what you expect. (Too bad there's no "linuxdf?") :) >>> >>>> In gigabytes, it means: >>>> * for df, the disk is 12.33 GB >>>> * for tune2fs, the disk is 12.53 GB >>>> >>>> I thought that maybe df is only taking into account the real blocks >>>> available for...

...t the overhead blocks used by the >>>> ext2 filesystem and not available for file storage. >>>> >>>> You're seeing the latter behavior. if you mount with -o minixdf you should >>>> see what you expect. (Too bad there's no "linuxdf?") :) >>>> >>>>> In gigabytes, it means: >>>>> * for df, the disk is 12.33 GB >>>>> * for tune2fs, the disk is 12.53 GB >>>>> >>>>> I thought that maybe df is only taking into account the real blocks >&g...