Larry E Kollar wrote:
> 
>   Filesystem  1K-blocks     Used    Avail Capacity  Mounted on
>   /dev/sd1a       49199    10451    33828    24%    /
>   /dev/sd1f      908105   779723    37571    95%    /usr
>   /dev/sd1e      709770   561735    77058    88%    /var
>   /dev/sd1g      561147    59571   445461    12%    /home
> 
> The info in disklabel's "size" column matches perfectly the data I wrote
> down when I set up the partitions.  Now compare the entries for /dev/sd1e
> and /dev/sd1f (accounting for differences in block sizes and reserving
> spare blocks).  What df shows is horribly wrong for sd1e & sd1f; I think
> sd1a & sd1g are OK.
> 
> 
> What *really* worries me is that fsck doesn't show any filesystem damage.
> When I do fsck -f, the sizes it displays agrees with disklabel and it still
> doesn't find any problems.  The kernel is from ...binary/sets/kern_sbc.tgz
> if that makes a difference.

I've seen this same problem.  There is absolutely _no_ damage involved.
The only problem you'll have is that you won't know how full some of your
partitions are.  I'm not quite sure where the problem is, but I think that
it results from having your first usr partition at `g', and the next one
at `e'.  The problem might be in disksubr.c, but then again, it might just
be in df...

Later.

-- 
Colin Wood                                 cwood@ichips.intel.com
Component Design Engineer - MD6                 Intel Corporation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I speak only on my own behalf, not for my employer.