Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 117799
(FS FAT32)df does not properly report free space
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:10:38 EST
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040211 Firefox/0.8 Description of problem: df -h does not properly report correct free space on one of my drives. The hard drive in question is a Western Digital 160GB drive, split into 2 80GB partitions using the WD boot cd that ships with it, and formatted as FAT32 for storage. It is reporting I have 1.9GB free, whereas the number is closer to 4.83GB, checked in Windows. The reason I know this is accurate is because the drive was full to the brim, and I deleted data roughly equivalent to that amount. I might also add that ever since I initially installed this drive and it was still empty, df wasn't being nice either. I never saved the output, but it was reporting above 100% free space, maybe 110%, and for 'Avail' it had "75G Z" or some odd way of reporting it. The real problem is that Linux things the drive is full, whereas it really isn't. That might be related to something other than df of course, but this is how far my knowledge takes me. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): coreutils-5.0-24 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. execute df -h 2. 3. Actual Results: Incorrect free space is reported on 1 drive. Expected Results: Accurate free space should be reported. Additional info: kernel-2.4.22-1.2174.nptl $ df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/hda3 18G 7.5G 9.0G 46% / /dev/hda2 99M 6.2M 88M 7% /boot none 252M 0 252M 0% /dev/shm /dev/hdb1 75G 73G 1.9G 98% /mnt/storage1 /dev/hdb5 75G 24G 51G 32% /mnt/storage2 /dev/hda1 19G 8.5G 11G 46% /mnt/win2k # fdisk -l Disk /dev/hda: 40.0 GB, 40020664320 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 4865 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/hda1 * 1 2433 19543041 7 HPFS/NTFS /dev/hda2 2434 2446 104422+ 83 Linux /dev/hda3 2447 4735 18386392+ 83 Linux /dev/hda4 4736 4865 1044225 f Win95 Ext'd (LBA) /dev/hda5 4736 4865 1044193+ 82 Linux swap Disk /dev/hdb: 160.0 GB, 160041885696 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 19457 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/hdb1 * 1 9729 78148161 c Win95 FAT32 (LBA) /dev/hdb2 9730 19457 78140160 f Win95 Ext'd (LBA) /dev/hdb5 9730 19457 78140128+ b Win95 FAT32 # hdparm -gi /dev/hdb /dev/hdb: geometry = 19457/255/63, sectors = 312581808, start = 0 Model=WDC WD1600JB-00FUA0, FwRev=15.05R15, SerialNo=WD-WMAES1283746 Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec SpinMotCtl Fixed DTR>5Mbs FmtGapReq } RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=57600, SectSize=600, ECCbytes=74 BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=8192kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=16 CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=268435455 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120} PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4 DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5 AdvancedPM=no WriteCache=enabled Drive conforms to: device does not report version: * signifies the current active mode
Just to be clear, it's /dev/hdb1 you're talking about? Please show the output of: strace -estatfs df /dev/hdb1 du -s /mnt/storage1 Thanks.
Yes, it's /dev/hdb1. Although now I'm suspicious and intend to check the second storage partition too. # strace -estatfs df /dev/hdb1 Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on statfs("/mnt/storage1", {f_type="MSDOS_SUPER_MAGIC", f_bsize=32768, f_blocks=2441533, f_bfree=60943, f_bavail=60943, f_files=0, f_ffree=0, f_fsid={0, 0}, f_namelen=260, f_frsize=0}) = 0 /dev/hdb1 78129056 76178880 1950176 98% /mnt/storage1 # du -s /mnt/storage1 73055968 /mnt/storage1 Thank you.
df is just reporting what the kernel tells it.
Thanks for the bug report. However, Red Hat no longer maintains this version of the product. Please upgrade to the latest version and open a new bug if the problem persists. The Fedora Legacy project (http://fedoralegacy.org/) maintains some older releases, and if you believe this bug is interesting to them, please report the problem in the bug tracker at: http://bugzilla.fedora.us/