Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
matthew tebbens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Here is what 'df' says about the drives: > > > Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on > > > /dev/hdb1 705433 485054 183942 73% / > > > /dev/sda14253289 509553 3523648 13% /var/sda1 > > > /dev/sdb14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdb1 > > > /dev/sdc14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdc1 > > > /dev/sdd14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdd1 > > > > > > This says I have 4,033,188 to play with plus 220,088 for reserved. > > > Now, if I add those together I get 4,253,276. > > > This is not even close to the stated formatted capacity of 4.51gigs. > > > > > > What am I missing here ?? > > > > 4,033,188 + 220,088 + 13 = 4,253,289 so that's all right then. > > But that's not what's at issue. > > What's relevant is the 4,401,778 blocks which becomes 4,507,420,672 bytes. > > That looks better. But even that is only looking at the first partition > > (sda1, sdb1 etc.) > > But I don't have 4,401,778 blocks, I only have a total of 4,253,289 blocks > which becomes aprox 4,355,367,000 bytes. > > How does it get from 4,401,778 blocks to 4,253,289 blocks ? > Somewhere along the line I lost about 250,000 blocks... ?? There are also the superblocks and inodes, and probably other overhead. The default ext2 fs uses 1 inode for 3KB, and it looks like inodes are probably 128 bytes. I figure that at about 190 MB for a 4.5GB disk for inodes alone. -- Carl Johnson[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
Hmmm interesting ! Thanks. On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, David Wright wrote: > On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, David Wright wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > > > > > > > (victor)[root:~#] mke2fs -c -v /dev/sda1 > > > > mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 > > > > Linux ext2 filesystem format > > > > Filesystem label= > > > > 1101824 inodes, 4401778 blocks > > > > 220088 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user > > > > First data block=1 > > > > Block size=1024 (log=0) > > > > Fragment size=1024 (log=0) > > > > 538 block groups > > > > 8192 blocks per group, 8192 fragments per group > > > > 2048 inodes per group > > > > Superblock backups stored on blocks: > [...] > > > > What am I missing here ?? > > > > > > 4,033,188 + 220,088 + 13 = 4,253,289 so that's all right then. > > > But that's not what's at issue. > > > What's relevant is the 4,401,778 blocks which becomes 4,507,420,672 bytes. > > > That looks better. But even that is only looking at the first partition > > > (sda1, sdb1 etc.) > > > > But I don't have 4,401,778 blocks, I only have a total of 4,253,289 blocks > > which becomes aprox 4,355,367,000 bytes. > > > > How does it get from 4,401,778 blocks to 4,253,289 blocks ? > > Somewhere along the line I lost about 250,000 blocks... ?? > > The partition has 4,401,778 blocks in total. There are 4,253,289 blocks > available for your data. Somewhere, the filesystem has to describe where > all that data is. > > Your filesystem has 1,101,824 inodes and, taking a quick look at > /usr/src/linux/include/linux/ext2_fs_i.h which describes inodes in > memory, there seem to be about 112 bytes in an inode. That adds up to > about half your "missing" space. But there's more to describing the > filesystem than just the inodes, and ext2 is optimised for performance, > which must mean using more space for chains of descriptors etc.. Perhaps you > should read a book on linux internals to find out what you're missing. > (Sorry for the pun.) > > -- > David Wright, Open University, Earth Science Department, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA > U.K. email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: +44 1908 653 739 fax: +44 1908 655 151 > > -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, David Wright wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > > > > > (victor)[root:~#] mke2fs -c -v /dev/sda1 > > > mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 > > > Linux ext2 filesystem format > > > Filesystem label= > > > 1101824 inodes, 4401778 blocks > > > 220088 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user > > > First data block=1 > > > Block size=1024 (log=0) > > > Fragment size=1024 (log=0) > > > 538 block groups > > > 8192 blocks per group, 8192 fragments per group > > > 2048 inodes per group > > > Superblock backups stored on blocks: [...] > > > What am I missing here ?? > > > > 4,033,188 + 220,088 + 13 = 4,253,289 so that's all right then. > > But that's not what's at issue. > > What's relevant is the 4,401,778 blocks which becomes 4,507,420,672 bytes. > > That looks better. But even that is only looking at the first partition > > (sda1, sdb1 etc.) > > But I don't have 4,401,778 blocks, I only have a total of 4,253,289 blocks > which becomes aprox 4,355,367,000 bytes. > > How does it get from 4,401,778 blocks to 4,253,289 blocks ? > Somewhere along the line I lost about 250,000 blocks... ?? The partition has 4,401,778 blocks in total. There are 4,253,289 blocks available for your data. Somewhere, the filesystem has to describe where all that data is. Your filesystem has 1,101,824 inodes and, taking a quick look at /usr/src/linux/include/linux/ext2_fs_i.h which describes inodes in memory, there seem to be about 112 bytes in an inode. That adds up to about half your "missing" space. But there's more to describing the filesystem than just the inodes, and ext2 is optimised for performance, which must mean using more space for chains of descriptors etc.. Perhaps you should read a book on linux internals to find out what you're missing. (Sorry for the pun.) -- David Wright, Open University, Earth Science Department, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA U.K. email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: +44 1908 653 739 fax: +44 1908 655 151 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
1101824 inodes, 4401778 blocks 220088 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user /dev/sda14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdb1 /dev/sdb14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdb1 /dev/sdc14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdc1 /dev/sdd14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdd1 The 220,088 reserved blocks are added to 4,033,188 to give me 4,253,289. How do you get from 4,253,289 to 4,401,778 ? 4,401,778 minus 4,253,289 leaves 148,489 missing blocks...? I'm assumeing that everything is support to add up to 4,401,778 blocks.. Matthew On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Tim Sailer wrote: > matthew tebbens wrote: > > > > > > Thats over 250megs of tables and internal structures ? > > > > Wow... > > There is also 5% reserved for root, unless you specified otherwise > > Tim > > -- > (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] / (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - > http://www.buoy.com/~tps >"The squeaky wheel gets the grease, > but gets changed at the next opportunity if it squeaks habitually." > ** Disclaimer: My views/comments/beliefs, as strange as they are, are my > own.** > -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
> Thats over 250megs of tables and internal structures ?
>
> Wow...
Not only. I don't remeber whether it was already mentioned but by default
5% of the filesystem is "reserved" for the super-user. You may override
this default with -m option to mk2efs.
Alex Y.
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Scott Ellis wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote:
> >
> > > But I don't have 4,401,778 blocks, I only have a total of 4,253,289 blocks
> > > which becomes aprox 4,355,367,000 bytes.
> > >
> > > How does it get from 4,401,778 blocks to 4,253,289 blocks ?
> > > Somewhere along the line I lost about 250,000 blocks... ??
> >
> > You neglected to account for the inode tables and other internal
> > filesystem structures that take up space in the filesystem.
> >
> > --
> > Scott K. Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > http://www.gate.net/~storm/
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
> Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
>
>
>
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +---+
| _ 7 |Alexander Yukhimets|
\(")| http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
/ \ \ +---+
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
matthew tebbens wrote: > > > Thats over 250megs of tables and internal structures ? > > Wow... There is also 5% reserved for root, unless you specified otherwise Tim -- (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] / (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.buoy.com/~tps "The squeaky wheel gets the grease, but gets changed at the next opportunity if it squeaks habitually." ** Disclaimer: My views/comments/beliefs, as strange as they are, are my own.** -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
Thats over 250megs of tables and internal structures ? Wow... On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Scott Ellis wrote: > On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > > > But I don't have 4,401,778 blocks, I only have a total of 4,253,289 blocks > > which becomes aprox 4,355,367,000 bytes. > > > > How does it get from 4,401,778 blocks to 4,253,289 blocks ? > > Somewhere along the line I lost about 250,000 blocks... ?? > > You neglected to account for the inode tables and other internal > filesystem structures that take up space in the filesystem. > > -- > Scott K. Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.gate.net/~storm/ > > -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > But I don't have 4,401,778 blocks, I only have a total of 4,253,289 blocks > which becomes aprox 4,355,367,000 bytes. > > How does it get from 4,401,778 blocks to 4,253,289 blocks ? > Somewhere along the line I lost about 250,000 blocks... ?? You neglected to account for the inode tables and other internal filesystem structures that take up space in the filesystem. -- Scott K. Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.gate.net/~storm/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, David Wright wrote: > On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > > > (victor)[root:~#] mke2fs -c -v /dev/sda1 > > mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 > > Linux ext2 filesystem format > > Filesystem label= > > 1101824 inodes, 4401778 blocks > > 220088 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user > > First data block=1 > > Block size=1024 (log=0) > > Fragment size=1024 (log=0) > > 538 block groups > > 8192 blocks per group, 8192 fragments per group > > 2048 inodes per group > > Superblock backups stored on blocks: > > etc > [...] > > Here is what 'df' says about the drives: > > Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on > > /dev/hdb1 705433 485054 183942 73% / > > /dev/sda14253289 509553 3523648 13% /var/sda1 > > /dev/sdb14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdb1 > > /dev/sdc14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdc1 > > /dev/sdd14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdd1 > > > > This says I have 4,033,188 to play with plus 220,088 for reserved. > > Now, if I add those together I get 4,253,276. > > This is not even close to the stated formatted capacity of 4.51gigs. > > > > What am I missing here ?? > > 4,033,188 + 220,088 + 13 = 4,253,289 so that's all right then. > But that's not what's at issue. > What's relevant is the 4,401,778 blocks which becomes 4,507,420,672 bytes. > That looks better. But even that is only looking at the first partition > (sda1, sdb1 etc.) But I don't have 4,401,778 blocks, I only have a total of 4,253,289 blocks which becomes aprox 4,355,367,000 bytes. How does it get from 4,401,778 blocks to 4,253,289 blocks ? Somewhere along the line I lost about 250,000 blocks... ?? Thanks, Matthew -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > (victor)[root:~#] mke2fs -c -v /dev/sda1 > mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 > Linux ext2 filesystem format > Filesystem label= > 1101824 inodes, 4401778 blocks > 220088 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user > First data block=1 > Block size=1024 (log=0) > Fragment size=1024 (log=0) > 538 block groups > 8192 blocks per group, 8192 fragments per group > 2048 inodes per group > Superblock backups stored on blocks: > etc [...] > Here is what 'df' says about the drives: > Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on > /dev/hdb1 705433 485054 183942 73% / > /dev/sda14253289 509553 3523648 13% /var/sda1 > /dev/sdb14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdb1 > /dev/sdc14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdc1 > /dev/sdd14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdd1 > > This says I have 4,033,188 to play with plus 220,088 for reserved. > Now, if I add those together I get 4,253,276. > This is not even close to the stated formatted capacity of 4.51gigs. > > What am I missing here ?? 4,033,188 + 220,088 + 13 = 4,253,289 so that's all right then. But that's not what's at issue. What's relevant is the 4,401,778 blocks which becomes 4,507,420,672 bytes. That looks better. But even that is only looking at the first partition (sda1, sdb1 etc.) If you examine the partition table, you should find the partition is 2 * 4,401,778 sectors in size, and that there's probably no free space at the end. My own experience is that pre-installed W95 machines on ~ 2GB disks have a single FAT32 partition, but that this doesn't quite fill the disk. The last one I bought was 73heads, 63sectors; 936cylinders of FAT32, 84 unused. Of course it didn't matter as I was trashing it anyway. You can add a few sectors by maximising the partition to use the sectors in its first track. (This isn't the default as DOS can't.) -- David Wright, Open University, Earth Science Department, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA U.K. email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: +44 1908 653 739 fax: +44 1908 655 151 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > Here is what 'df' says about the drives: > Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on > /dev/hdb1 705433 485054 183942 73% / > /dev/sda14253289 509553 3523648 13% /var/sda1 > > This says I have 4,033,188 to play with plus 220,088 for reserved. > Now, if I add those together I get 4,253,276. > This is not even close to the stated formatted capacity of 4.51gigs. 4,253,276 * 1024 = 4,355,354,624. Getting closer (they usually count a kilo as 1000 to inflate numbers). Changing the block size to a large number will also reduce the formatting info written to the disk, increasing the avail space, but also increasing the wasted space by small files. (winblows will probably use a much larger block size.) Does that help? Brandon - Brandon Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "We all know linux is great... it PGP: finger -l [EMAIL PROTECTED] does infinite loops in 5 seconds" Phone: (757) 221-4847 --Linus Torvalds -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
I'm trying to setup 4 4.51gig scsi drives. I used the following to setup the drives: (victor)[root:~#] mke2fs -c -v /dev/sda1 mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 Linux ext2 filesystem format Filesystem label= 1101824 inodes, 4401778 blocks 220088 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user First data block=1 Block size=1024 (log=0) Fragment size=1024 (log=0) 538 block groups 8192 blocks per group, 8192 fragments per group 2048 inodes per group Superblock backups stored on blocks: etc And I did this for each one of the 4 drives Here is what 'df' says about the drives: Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on /dev/hdb1 705433 485054 183942 73% / /dev/sda14253289 509553 3523648 13% /var/sda1 /dev/sdb14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdb1 /dev/sdc14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdc1 /dev/sdd14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdd1 This says I have 4,033,188 to play with plus 220,088 for reserved. Now, if I add those together I get 4,253,276. This is not even close to the stated formatted capacity of 4.51gigs. What am I missing here ?? Is there a way to optimize the formatting of large harddrives to get the most out of them, or should 'mke2fs -c -v /dev/sdxx' always be used ? Thanks ! Matthew -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
