topic Re: bdf vs df -k in Operating System - HP-UX

bdf vs df -k

Jason Berendsen — Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:07:57 GMT

Does anyone know why bdf shows a larger number in the kbytes column than df -k in total allocated Kb.

They are close to each other but my DBA's want exact numbers.

Thanks,

Jason Berendsen

Re: bdf vs df -k

Santosh Nair_1 — Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:10:26 GMT

Jason,

Could you give an example of what you mean?

-Santosh

Re: bdf vs df -k

Robin Wakefield — Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:21:32 GMT

Hi Jason,

Have a look at:

http://forums.itrc.hp.com/cm/QuestionAnswer/1,1150,0x81ac72234586d5118ff00090279cd0f9,00.html

Rgds, Robin

Re: bdf vs df -k

James R. Ferguson — Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:27:55 GMT

Hi Jason:

See the commentary in this thread:

http://forums.itrc.hp.com/cm/QuestionAnswer/1,1150,0x81ac72234586d5118ff00090279cd0f9,00.html

...JRF...

Re: bdf vs df -k

Praveen Bezawada — Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:57:22 GMT

Hi
Sometimes the difference occurs if some process is accessing a file that has been deleted or modified.
bdf gives the correct status in such a case.

...BPK...

Re: bdf vs df -k

Sanjay_6 — Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:03:05 GMT

Hi Jason,

the 2nd column of bdf output shows the total no of blocks allocated to that LV. you can confirm the same using the No of MByes of lvdisplay output multiplied by the extent size, normally 4MB. This multiplied by 1024 will give you the total no of block allocated to this LV and it matches the 2nd column of the bdf output. The remaining two columns of bdf output shown the no of block in use and the no of blocks free, a sum of which does not match the total no of block allocated, but it matches the output of the "df -k" command for this LV.

This shows that there are system overheads which are not shown in the "df -k" output, but they are shown in the bdf output. So my opinion is bdf gives a more reliable output.

Hope this helps.

Thanks