Re: [CentOS] very large difference between df and du (10 GB, hard to believe ) SOLVED !!!

2010-02-02 Thread Robert Grasso
@centos.org > [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] De la part de Peter Kjellstrom > Envoyé : 1 février 2010 17:03 > À : centos@centos.org > Objet : Re: [CentOS]very large difference between df and du > (10 GB, hard to believe ) > > Indeed. At this point I'd start looking a

Re: [CentOS] very large difference between df and du (10 GB, hard to believe)

2010-02-01 Thread Ryan Pugatch
Robert Grasso wrote: > Hello, > > I have a small server running a tool (RT : perl + mysql + apache) for our > support team. I stripped down everything else. The OS is > CentOS 4.8. I noticed a difference between df and du which is hard to believe > : > Did you mount something such as an NFS s

Re: [CentOS] very large difference between df and du (10 GB, hard to believe)

2010-02-01 Thread m . roth
>>> I rebooted on the CentOS v4.8 CD #1, started "linux rescue" : >> >> After the reboot that would be taken care of, so that's not the issue >> here. > > My understanding of the difference between df and du was that du > reports the actual size of the file while df reports the space > allocated by

Re: [CentOS] very large difference between df and du (10 GB, hard to believe )

2010-02-01 Thread Peter Kjellstrom
On Monday 01 February 2010, Brian Mathis wrote: > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Matt Iavarone wrote: > > This is typical.  There were probably files deleted from the file > > system that are still in use by a process.  Restarting the process > > will release the files and df and du will jive.

Re: [CentOS] very large difference between df and du (10 GB, hard to believe)

2010-02-01 Thread Todd Denniston
Robert Grasso wrote, On 02/01/2010 10:29 AM: > Hello, > CentOS 4.8. I noticed a difference between df and du which is hard to believe > : > > according to df, I am using 29 GB > [r...@cedrat-rt ~]$ df -h > FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on > /dev/sda1 33G 29G

Re: [CentOS] very large difference between df and du (10 GB, hard to believe)

2010-02-01 Thread Matt Iavarone
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Brian Mathis wrote: > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Matt Iavarone > wrote: >> >> This is typical.  There were probably files deleted from the file >> system that are still in use by a process.  Restarting the process >> will release the files and df and du will

Re: [CentOS] very large difference between df and du (10 GB, hard to believe)

2010-02-01 Thread Robert Heller
At Mon, 1 Feb 2010 08:36:29 -0700 CentOS mailing list wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Robert Grasso > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have a small server running a tool (RT : perl + mysql + apache) for our > > support team. I stripped down everything else. The OS is > > CentOS 4.8. I no

Re: [CentOS] very large difference between df and du (10 GB, hard to believe)

2010-02-01 Thread Drew
>    > I rebooted on the CentOS v4.8 CD #1, started "linux rescue" : > > After the reboot that would be taken care of, so that's not the issue here. My understanding of the difference between df and du was that du reports the actual size of the file while df reports the space allocated by the file

Re: [CentOS] very large difference between df and du (10 GB, hard to believe)

2010-02-01 Thread Brian Mathis
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Matt Iavarone wrote: > > This is typical.  There were probably files deleted from the file > system that are still in use by a process.  Restarting the process > will release the files and df and du will jive. > That argument only holds until you reach the point i

Re: [CentOS] very large difference between df and du (10 GB, hard to believe)

2010-02-01 Thread Matt Iavarone
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Robert Grasso wrote: > Hello, > > I have a small server running a tool (RT : perl + mysql + apache) for our > support team. I stripped down everything else. The OS is > CentOS 4.8. I noticed a difference between df and du which is hard to believe > : > > according