BB Unix Network Monitor - Message
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: {bb} Negative disk usage and incorrect avail/capacity?
- To: bb@bb4.com
- Subject: Re: {bb} Negative disk usage and incorrect avail/capacity?
- From: Philip Clark <bblist@cannae.uklinux.net>
- Date: 02 Feb 2006 00:23:42 +0000
- Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
- Content-type: text/plain
- In-reply-to: <7930EE6CD7CA354D93B444D0433C061101A4755F@NIHCESMLBX6.nih.gov>
- References: <7930EE6CD7CA354D93B444D0433C061101A4755F@NIHCESMLBX6.nih.gov>
- Reply-to: bb@bb4.com
- Sender: owner-bb@bb4.com
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 17:02, Szabady, Paul (NIH/NIEHS) [C] wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I'm not sure when this started, but I see that locally attached large
> volumes are not reporting proper disk usage/capacity stats.
>
> For example, I have a 8TB+ drive shelf (drive D:) on a machine which is
> reporting:
> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail
> Capacity Mounted
> D 775925760 -3412431616 4188357376
> -439% /FIXED/D
>
> Another machine with a 4TB+ drive shelf is reporting:
> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail
> Capacity Mounted
> D 387962880 -713896192 1101859072
> -184% /FIXED/D
>
> Server is bb19c
> Clients are both Windows 1.08d
>
> I have a number of servers with 1TB+ and 2TB+ "drives" that seem to
> report properly. These are SAN attached, whereas the first two examples
> are locally attached.
>
> Any thoughts/suggestions?
I don't know if this is a limitation of the client or of Windows
itself, but it might help others if you let us know which version
of Windows and what filesystem you're using.
Cheers, Phil.
--
Heisenberg may have slept here.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
To unsubscribe from this list, or to subscribe to the bb-digest list
send e-mail to mailto:majordomo@bb4.com with unsubscribe bb -and/or-
subscribe bb-digest in the BODY of the message.
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index