All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Fariya F <fariya.fatima03@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: df returns incorrect size of partition due to huge overhead block count in ext4 partition
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 18:11:46 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yj4+IqC6FPzEOhcW@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACA3K+i8nZRBxeTfdy7Uq5LHAsbZEHTNati7-RRybsj_4ckUyw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 12:12:30PM +0530, Fariya F wrote:
> The output dumpe2fs returns the following
> 
>     Block count:              102400
>     Reserved block count:     5120
>     Overhead blocks:          50343939

Yeah, that value is obviously wrong; I'm not sure how it got
corrupted, but that's the cause of the your problem.

> a) Where does overhead blocks get set?

The kernel can calculate the overhead value, but it can be slow for
very large file systems.  For that reason, it is cached in the
superblock.  So if the s_overhead_clusters is zero, the kernel will
calculate the overhead value, and then update the superblock.

In newer versions of e2fsprogs, mkfs.ext4 / mke2fs will write the
overhead value into the superblock.

> b) Why is this value huge for my partition and how to correct it
> considering fsck is also not correcting this

The simpleest way is to run the following command with the file system
unmounted:

debugfs -w -R "set_super_value overhead_clusters 0" /dev/sdXX

Then the next time you mount the file system, the correct value should
get caluclated and filled in.

It's a bug that fsck isn't notcing the problem and correcting it.
I'll work on getting that fixed in a future version of e2fsprogs.

My apologies for the inconvenience.

Cheers,

					- Ted

  reply	other threads:[~2022-03-25 22:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-03-25  6:42 df returns incorrect size of partition due to huge overhead block count in ext4 partition Fariya F
2022-03-25 22:11 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2022-03-28 16:08   ` Fariya F
2022-03-29 13:08     ` Theodore Ts'o
2022-04-12  8:56       ` Fariya F
2022-04-15  2:54         ` [PATCH 1/3] ext4: fix overhead calculation to account for the reserved gdt blocks Theodore Ts'o
2022-04-15  2:54           ` [PATCH 2/3] ext4: force overhead calculation if the s_overhead_cluster makes no sense Theodore Ts'o
2022-04-15  2:54           ` [PATCH 3/3] ext4: update the cached overhead value in the superblock Theodore Ts'o
2022-04-15 14:41         ` df returns incorrect size of partition due to huge overhead block count in ext4 partition Theodore Ts'o

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Yj4+IqC6FPzEOhcW@mit.edu \
    --to=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=fariya.fatima03@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.