* Osier Yang <jyang@xxxxxxxxxx> [2010-12-03 00:23]: > ??? 2010???12???03??? 14:00, Ryan Harper ??????: > >We recently had an issue with not being able to allocate the full > >capacity of a directory based storage pool. The reported value via > >pool-info was larger than what was available to the image creator. > > > >Looking at the storage code, in virStorageBackendFileSystemRefresh() > >we're using statvfs, and reporting back > > > > pool->def->available = ((unsigned long long)sb.f_bfree * > > (unsigned long long)sb.f_bsize); > > > >Which is the amount of blocks available, including any root reservation > >if present on the filesystem. > > > >This does't line up with df output , which at least on RHEL5 and 6 > >systems reports the available space from f_bavail, which excludes > >and reserved space. > > > >Is it reasonable to have the available value line up with output from df > >and not report reserved space? > > > It's misleading not to exclude the reserved space, probly it will be > nicer to report both the actually avaiable spaces and the reserved > ones. I argue the opposite. df doesn't show you the reserved space. the first thing someone does to compare the values between libvirt directory pool and df. I don't mind reporting both but, I've yet to see a tool to report the reserved value rather than the non-reserved. > > - Osier > > -- > libvir-list mailing list > libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list -- Ryan Harper Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center IBM Corp., Austin, Tx ryanh@xxxxxxxxxx -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list