Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Distribution: SuSE Linux 7.3 (PPC), Red Hat 7.2, Best Linux 2000 (Intel x86)
Posts: 10
Rep:
df reports wrong disk usage
I began rescuing data from a 35 GB ext3 filesystem on a damaged hard drive by copying the corresponding device file with dd_rhelp, in order to obtain a disk image.
Unfortunatly, the drive I used didn't have enough space to hold both the log file, which permits dd_rhelp to manage dd_rescue and to resume its job, and the image. So, I had to stop dd_rhelp as it couldn't write anymore to the sane drive. The problem is that the disk image file is about 35 GB, but df reports only 3.7 GB used on the drive!
I got a bigger drive, and as I would like not to restart the recovery from the beginning, I copied the log and disk image files onto it. It seems both files were copied properly, but df still reports a wrong disk space usage on the new drive: 2.3 GB now, and of course the disk image file has still the same size (about 35 GB).
I'd like to know if I don't need to bother about what df says.
If you have 100% inodes used then it doesn't look good...
It looks just like a normal df screen but will tell you the number of inodes used instead of file space.
Distribution: SuSE Linux 7.3 (PPC), Red Hat 7.2, Best Linux 2000 (Intel x86)
Posts: 10
Original Poster
Rep:
OK. For the "df -i" output, I had already tried on my laptop I'm using right now.
I guess for a 35 GB file (in fact, it's a little bit more), I should have 35*1024/4=8960 inodes used just for the file (I've formatted the 80 GB disk using one inode per 4 megabytes in ext2), plus a little bit more.
If the number of used inodes is correct, does this mean everything is all right?
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.