bdf vs df -k

[Jason Berendsen]

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

[Santosh Nair_1]

Jason,

Could you give an example of what you mean?

-Santosh

[Robin Wakefield · Accepted solution]

Hi Jason,

Have a look at:

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

Rgds, Robin

[James R. Ferguson]

Hi Jason:

See the commentary in this thread:

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

...JRF...

[Praveen Bezawada]

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...

[Sanjay_6]

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