On Tuesday 05 February 2013 15:43:51 Lukáš Czerner wrote: > > > > Yeah, I totally forgot about the inode situation on ext filesystems. > > > > So is > > > > tune2fs giving wrong stats for live (mounted) filesystems? > > > > > > Not sure what situation you're referring to. Directory as any other > > > file is represented by an inode and there is a limited number of > > > inodes in the file system. > > > > The situation that inode blocks are statically allocated at mkfs time. > > Yes, that is true. Indeed it is. :) > > > Using tune2fs on live/mounted file system is bad idea and the > > > information might not be correct (exactly for this reason it is > > > _NOT_ recommended to run fsck on live file system). Use 'df -i' if > > > you want to get information about inode count. > > > > Yes, later I figured out that tune2fs -l does not give current stats for > > live filesystems. I did not expect that to be dangerous though. And I > > also forgot about 'df -i'. Thing is, I did not hit this limit since the > > previous century so guess I subconsciously assumed inode limits are an > > outdated concept. :) > Running tune2fs -l on live file system is not dangerous, I did not > said that. Running fsck on live file system on the other hand _is_ > dangerous. :) Neither have I said I was running fsck or anything other than 'tune2fs -l'. Regards, Tvrtko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
