Subject: Re: [Q] why 'df' and 'fsck' say differently?
To: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@loki.stanford.edu>
From: Sheldon Simms <sheldon@atlcom.net>
List: port-mac68k
Date: 08/05/1997 02:08:43
Bill Studenmund wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for your follow.
> >
> > > > I assign only 65536 blocks, but 'df' says 504952 blocks.
> > >
> > > Where did you only asign 65536 blocks?
> >
> > With 'APS', which is a hard-disk utility, I made some partition on
> > my hard-disk;  I assign 32KByte to 'sd0a'.  32KByte is consisted in
> > 65536 512byte blocks.
> 
> What does diskalbel say?
> 
> The only two things I can think of are that either the disklabel is
> messed up, and the partition you wanted to be sd0a isn't, or that
> df is really, really sick.
> 
> How many partitions do you have in use?

I have basically the same thing. I have a ~1gb root partition and a 40Mb
/tmp partition. When I df, it says the /tmp partition is over 2Gb in size
and over 100% full, even though it is actually completely empty. The line
for the root partition seems completely correct. Since I wasn't sure that 
everything was "really" OK and I don't really need the separate /tmp right
now, I haven't been mounting it, but I wouldn't mind knowing what is going
on. The df is one in the latest snapshot.