I'm having a spot of bother with a large (900GB) partition.
fdisk claims it's 900GB. I made an ext3 fs on it and df says it's only 94GB. Which is correct? Or did I do something wrong?
Kevin Thorpe wrote:
I'm having a spot of bother with a large (900GB) partition.
fdisk claims it's 900GB. I made an ext3 fs on it and df says it's only 94GB. Which is correct? Or did I do something wrong?
If this partition is on a LARGER drive, you may need to use parted and not fdisk to create your partitions. Large drives need gpt labels and are not able to be partitioned with fdisk.
However, that is not usually a problem with 900GB drive.
On Friday 04 July 2008, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Kevin Thorpe wrote:
I'm having a spot of bother with a large (900GB) partition.
fdisk claims it's 900GB. I made an ext3 fs on it and df says it's only 94GB. Which is correct? Or did I do something wrong?
If this partition is on a LARGER drive, you may need to use parted and not fdisk to create your partitions. Large drives need gpt labels and are not able to be partitioned with fdisk.
Put differently, if you run fdisk on a device >2T fdisks behaviour is undefined. It will commonly create broken layouts without logging any error messages. All this because fdisk only uses msdos-style partition tables which by design doesn't work for >2T devices. Of course the worst part of all this is fdisks complete lack of error checking...
I your device/drive is not larger than 2T then this theory falls.
/Peter
However, that is not usually a problem with 900GB drive.
Kevin Thorpe wrote:
I'm having a spot of bother with a large (900GB) partition. fdisk claims it's 900GB. I made an ext3 fs on it and df says it's
only
94GB. Which is correct? Or did I do something wrong?
If this partition is on a LARGER drive, you may need to use parted and not fdisk to create your partitions. Large drives need gpt labels and are not able to be partitioned with fdisk.
However, that is not usually a problem with 900GB drive.
parted claims it's 879GB so the partition appears to be ok. Have I managed to format a small filesystem on a large partition?
On Friday 04 July 2008, Kevin Thorpe wrote:
Kevin Thorpe wrote:
I'm having a spot of bother with a large (900GB) partition. fdisk claims it's 900GB. I made an ext3 fs on it and df says it's
only
94GB. Which is correct? Or did I do something wrong?
If this partition is on a LARGER drive, you may need to use parted and not fdisk to create your partitions. Large drives need gpt labels and are not able to be partitioned with fdisk.
However, that is not usually a problem with 900GB drive.
parted claims it's 879GB so the partition appears to be ok. Have I managed to format a small filesystem on a large partition?
How big is the drive/device on which you have created this partition?
/Peter
On Friday 04 July 2008, Kevin Thorpe wrote:
Kevin Thorpe wrote:
I'm having a spot of bother with a large (900GB)
partition. fdisk
claims it's 900GB. I made an ext3 fs on it and df says it's
only
94GB. Which is correct? Or did I do something wrong?
If this partition is on a LARGER drive, you may need to
use parted
and not fdisk to create your partitions. Large drives need gpt labels and are not able to be partitioned with fdisk.
However, that is not usually a problem with 900GB drive.
parted claims it's 879GB so the partition appears to be ok. Have I managed to format a small filesystem on a large partition?
How big is the drive/device on which you have created this partition?
It's a terabyte hardware RAID array. I've got a 100GB partition for the system and I want to use the remaining 900GB as a backup storage location.
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 14:09 +0100, Kevin Thorpe wrote:
Kevin Thorpe wrote:
I'm having a spot of bother with a large (900GB) partition. fdisk claims it's 900GB. I made an ext3 fs on it and df says it's
only
94GB. Which is correct? Or did I do something wrong?
If this partition is on a LARGER drive, you may need to use parted and not fdisk to create your partitions. Large drives need gpt labels and are not able to be partitioned with fdisk.
However, that is not usually a problem with 900GB drive.
parted claims it's 879GB so the partition appears to be ok. Have I managed to format a small filesystem on a large partition?
I suggest running e2fsck -n. See the man page. Then, think of the -m parameter. The default, IIRC, is 5%. On small drives of the past this was appropriate. Now, I make most of mine with 1%.
900GB * .05 = appx. 45GB. There's your loss.
<snip>
HTH
Kevin Thorpe wrote:
I'm having a spot of bother with a large (900GB)
partition. fdisk
claims it's 900GB. I made an ext3 fs on it and df says it's
only
94GB. Which is correct? Or did I do something wrong?
parted claims it's 879GB so the partition appears to be ok. Have I managed to format a small filesystem on a large partition?
I suggest running e2fsck -n. See the man page. Then, think of the -m parameter. The default, IIRC, is 5%. On small drives of the past this was appropriate. Now, I make most of mine with 1%.
900GB * .05 = appx. 45GB. There's your loss.
I'm not bothered about an odd 45GB, it's that df says it's only 94GB in total that worries me.
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 15:29 +0100, Kevin Thorpe wrote:
Kevin Thorpe wrote:
I'm having a spot of bother with a large (900GB)
partition. fdisk
claims it's 900GB. I made an ext3 fs on it and df says it's
only
94GB. Which is correct? Or did I do something wrong?
parted claims it's 879GB so the partition appears to be ok. Have I managed to format a small filesystem on a large partition?
I suggest running e2fsck -n. See the man page. Then, think of the -m parameter. The default, IIRC, is 5%. On small drives of the past this was appropriate. Now, I make most of mine with 1%.
900GB * .05 = appx. 45GB. There's your loss.
I'm not bothered about an odd 45GB, it's that df says it's only 94GB in total that worries me.
That was just an aside. The -n, IIRC would be the useful thing. There's other things you can do to: "df -ih".
The point was that the -n will tell you what you want to know without having to actually read the man page(s).
<snip>
Kevin Thorpe wrote on Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:29:40 +0100:
I'm not bothered about an odd 45GB, it's that df says it's only 94GB in total that worries me.
There's no chance you or the software somehow confuses that 100GB partition with the big one? I mean 94 GB ~ 100 GB.
Kai
Hi,
On Fri, July 4, 2008 6:16 am, Kevin Thorpe wrote:
I'm having a spot of bother with a large (900GB) partition.
fdisk claims it's 900GB. I made an ext3 fs on it and df says it's only 94GB. Which is correct? Or did I do something wrong?
I would to check `parted /device/path print` to verify your tables.
Cheers,
Shaun
-
Johnny Hughes -
Kai Schaetzl -
Kevin Thorpe -
Peter Kjellstrom -
Shaun Meyer -
William L. Maltby