Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:11:59 -0800 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: dnelson@allantgroup.com Cc: john@zog.net, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFSv2 Wrong FS Size Message-ID: <498a9f4f.MMsTyUVGLtZWmJhj%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <20090204151450.GQ75802@dan.emsphone.com> References: <158E6ABD-6BCF-4222-AD59-9B43FE6832D5@zog.net> <ECF42325-F49A-4C4F-9C1C-F5B00A78BC73@zog.net> <20090203215326.GN75802@dan.emsphone.com> <49894cf9.J2VbLPqLSoDq7yay%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <20090204151450.GQ75802@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > you could rebuild "df" to print its numbers as unsigned > > > instead of signed. Just watch out if your local filesystems > > > start eating into their 8% reserve, since they'll start > > > reporting huge values. > > > > Or patch "df" to print local filesystem sizes as signed -- so > > that the reserve reporting still works -- and NFS as unsigned > > to match the spec. > > That works as long as you don't NFS-mount other FreeBSD systems > with overfull drives :) Looking at this a little more closely, it appears that the "struct statfs" returned by statfs(2) and friends tells the whole story, using 64-bit values most of which are defined as unsigned. (Only f_bavail and f_ffree -- the number of blocks and inodes available to non-superusers -- are defined as signed.) The code that converts from the 32-bit NFSv2 to the 64-bit "struct statfs" values seems more likely to be somewhere in NFS than in df(1).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?498a9f4f.MMsTyUVGLtZWmJhj%perryh>