Re: partition reporting full, but not

On Tue 20 Feb 2024 at 17:14:41 (+), debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: > Felix Miata wrote: > > Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-20 17:45 (UTC+1100): > > > > > I just removed 3 snapshots from my daily driver with no change in > > > used space reported by df > > > > df doesn't know how t

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On Mon 19 Feb 2024 at 10:26:05 (+1100), Keith Bainbridge wrote: > On 18/2/24 14:49, Keith Bainbridge wrote: > > On 18/2/24 07:34, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: > > > Keith Bainbridge wrote: > > > > Yes the / partitions are btrfs > > > > > > So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up b

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:21:05PM +1100, Keith Bainbridge wrote: > > On 21/2/24 10:47, Felix Miata wrote: > > I didn't think so, which begs the question why OP Keith is using it. :p > > -- > > I read somewhere about 2 years ago, that it automagically de-duped data > when it detected I was copy

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 21/2/24 10:47, Felix Miata wrote: I didn't think so, which begs the question why OP Keith is using it. :p -- I read somewhere about 2 years ago, that it automagically de-duped data when it detected I was copying the same file to different directories. It's not deliberate, but I have oft

Re: partition reporting full, but not

Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-21 11:57 (UTC+1100): > Felix Miata wrote: >> A current thread from elsewhere that should be helpful: >> > really-the-solution/172576> >> btrfs filesystem usage / >> snapper li

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 21/2/24 11:38, Felix Miata wrote: A current thread from elsewhere that should be helpful: btrfs filesystem usage / snapper list btrfs qgroup show / Thanks for the pr

Re: partition reporting full, but not

to...@tuxteam.de composed on 2024-02-20 09:38 (UTC+0100): > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:42:18AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote: >> Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-20 17:45 (UTC+1100): >>> I just removed 3 snapshots from my daily driver with no change in used >>> space reported by df >> df doesn'

Re: partition reporting full, but not

Greg Wooledge composed on 2024-02-20 14:56 (UTC-0500): > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:47:26PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote: >> Surely somewhere on debian.org such things must be addressed if Bookworm's >> default >> has also been changed to btrfs. > That has not happened. The default file system is

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:47:26PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > Surely somewhere on debian.org such things must be addressed if Bookworm's > default > has also been changed to btrfs. That has not happened. The default file system is still ext4.

Re: partition reporting full, but not

to...@tuxteam.de composed on 2024-02-20 09:38 (UTC+0100): > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:42:18AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote: >> Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-20 17:45 (UTC+1100): >> > I just removed 3 snapshots from my daily driver with no change in used >> > space reported by df >> df does

Re: partition reporting full, but not

Felix Miata wrote: > Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-20 17:45 (UTC+1100): > > > I just removed 3 snapshots from my daily driver with no change in > > used space reported by df > > df doesn't know how to calculate freespace on btrfs. You need to be > typing > > btrfs filesystem df

Re: partition reporting full, but not

Hi, > when cfdisk reports: > Device Start End Sectors Size Type > /dev/sda2 1785522176 1786245119 722944 353M EFI System > /dev/sda3 1786245120 1933045759 146800640 70G EFI System > I don't understand the 'EFI System' note /dev/sda3 is / The partition type d

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:21:15PM +1100, Keith Bainbridge wrote: > > On 20/2/24 19:38, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] > Tomas, the upgrade failure was earlier than these notes. It has now worked I see. > Sorry, but I don't know how to assess the snapshot space usage. Nor do I -- my question w

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 20/2/24 19:38, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:42:18AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote: Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-20 17:45 (UTC+1100): I just removed 3 snapshots from my daily driver with no change in used space reported by df df doesn't know how to calculate free

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 20/2/24 18:42, Felix Miata wrote: btrfs filesystem df OK, so please interpret: >> btrfs filesystem df -h / Data, single: total=32.80GiB, used=31.94GiB System, DUP: total=8.00MiB, used=16.00KiB Metadata, DUP: total=1.50GiB, used=1.10GiB GlobalReserve, single: total=71.69MiB, used=0.00B k

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:42:18AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-20 17:45 (UTC+1100): > > > I just removed 3 snapshots from my daily driver with no change in used > > space reported by df > > df doesn't know how to calculate freespace on btrfs. You need to be t

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 20/2/24 18:11, Keith Bainbridge wrote: On 19/2/24 14:20, Keith Bainbridge wrote: On 19/2/24 10:26, Keith Bainbridge wrote: On 18/2/24 14:49, Keith Bainbridge wrote: On 18/2/24 07:34, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: Keith Bainbridge wrote: Yes the / partitions are btrfs So the a

Re: partition reporting full, but not

Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-20 17:45 (UTC+1100): > I just removed 3 snapshots from my daily driver with no change in used > space reported by df df doesn't know how to calculate freespace on btrfs. You need to be typing btrfs filesystem df if you have not aliased df to btrfs f

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 19/2/24 14:20, Keith Bainbridge wrote: On 19/2/24 10:26, Keith Bainbridge wrote: On 18/2/24 14:49, Keith Bainbridge wrote: On 18/2/24 07:34, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: Keith Bainbridge wrote: Yes the / partitions are btrfs So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 19/2/24 13:00, Max Nikulin wrote: On 19/02/2024 06:26, Keith Bainbridge wrote: So later yesterday afternoon I created a new snapshot with no obvious change is free space. Effect of snapshots is delayed. When you remove a file that does not belong to any snapshot, some disk space is rec

Re: partition reporting full, but not

David Christensen wrote: > On 2/18/24 19:20, Keith Bainbridge wrote: > > I am convinced that the missing space is used by btrfs snapshot > > process. > > > Perhaps. But, are you re-balancing your btrfs file systems regularly? > > https://manpages.debian.org/bookworm/btrfs-progs/btrfs-balance

Re: partition reporting full, but not

Am 19.02.2024 um 04:20 schrieb Keith Bainbridge: > I am convinced that the missing space is used by btrfs snapshot process. First off: I am not a btrfs user (and will never be, i might add). I am using zfs since many years, and - although i read an awful lot of documentation beforehand, and played

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 2/18/24 19:20, Keith Bainbridge wrote: I am convinced that the missing space is used by btrfs snapshot process. Perhaps. But, are you re-balancing your btrfs file systems regularly? https://manpages.debian.org/bookworm/btrfs-progs/btrfs-balance.8.en.html Doing it by hand was not practic

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 02:20:20PM +1100, Keith Bainbridge wrote: [...] > I am convinced that the missing space is used by btrfs snapshot process. But > WHY is the used space reporting on my daily driver LESS than that on the > spare machine 29G vs 35G? The original install was the same .iso Ah

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 19/2/24 10:26, Keith Bainbridge wrote: On 18/2/24 14:49, Keith Bainbridge wrote: On 18/2/24 07:34, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: Keith Bainbridge wrote: Yes the / partitions are btrfs So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up by btrfs snapshots. Seems to be the prime

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 19/2/24 13:41, Felix Miata wrote: would be some places to start. Didn't you do your https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-filesystem.html reading yet? ?_? My eyes have glazed over too often, already. I know I have to get back, but that NEED to do it is making it harder. -- All t

Re: partition reporting full, but not

Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-18 14:49 (UTC+1100): > debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: >> So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up by btrfs snapshots. > Seems to be the prime suspect. While snapshotting is obviously a consumer, until you use the right tool for the job, you wo

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 19/02/2024 06:26, Keith Bainbridge wrote: So later yesterday afternoon I created a new snapshot with no obvious change is free space. Effect of snapshots is delayed. When you remove a file that does not belong to any snapshot, some disk space is reclaimed. However to restore a file (even

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 18/2/24 14:49, Keith Bainbridge wrote: On 18/2/24 07:34, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: Keith Bainbridge wrote: Yes the / partitions are btrfs So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up by btrfs snapshots. Seems to be the prime suspect.   If that's the case, btrfs is NOT

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 18/2/24 14:08, Max Nikulin wrote: On 17/02/2024 09:52, Greg Wooledge wrote: If so, you *could*  have data inside the /home directory of the root file system, which is hidden by the /home file system that's mounted over it.  You'd need to unmount /home to check. A less intrusive way to ins

Re: partition reporting full, but not

Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-17 15:44 (UTC+1100): Yes the / partitions are btrfs Several years ago, I installed Debian (9?) using btrfs for root (and boot?). I failed to understand that btrfs required regular maintenance and/or I was too lazy to figure it out and do it. After a fe

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 18/2/24 09:19, Cindy Sue Causey wrote: I only know to say this because it just happened a few days ago. Rsync left some semi-permanent remnants when I was having problems with the wireless capable hard drive docking station repeatedly cutting out. I was offloading videos and images from a c

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 18/2/24 07:34, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: Keith Bainbridge wrote: Yes the / partitions are btrfs So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up by btrfs snapshots. Seems to be the prime suspect. If that's the case, btrfs is NOT hard-linking the snapshots as timeshift

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 17/02/2024 09:52, Greg Wooledge wrote: If so, you *could* have data inside the /home directory of the root file system, which is hidden by the /home file system that's mounted over it. You'd need to unmount /home to check. A less intrusive way to inspect shadowed directories is bind mounts

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 2/17/24, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 04:00:14PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> > So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up by btrfs snapshots. >> >> Another possibility is a (few) large file(s) that is/are still open for >> some process(es) but have been `rm` (`unl

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 04:00:14PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up by btrfs snapshots. > > Another possibility is a (few) large file(s) that is/are still open for > some process(es) but have been `rm` (`unlink`) so they don't have a name > any m

Re: partition reporting full, but not

> So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up by btrfs snapshots. Another possibility is a (few) large file(s) that is/are still open for some process(es) but have been `rm` (`unlink`) so they don't have a name any more. Stefan

Re: partition reporting full, but not

Keith Bainbridge wrote: > Yes the / partitions are btrfs So the apparently missing space is perhaps taken up by btrfs snapshots.

Re: partition reporting full, but not

Keith Bainbridge wrote: ... > No nfs mounts any swap partition or swap space? but other than that sharing /home with / is likely your issue and you mention snapshots and backintime and i do recall that needing plenty of space. as for btrfs, i have no clue, i've never touched it. songbi

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 17/2/24 17:08, Felix Miata wrote: Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-17 15:44 (UTC+1100): Yes the / partitions are btrfs df was not designed for the task you gave it. You need to use btrfs filesystem commands: https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-filesystem.html

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 03:44:49PM +1100, Keith Bainbridge wrote: [...] > df -h > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > udev7.2G 0 7.2G 0% /dev > tmpfs 1.5G 1.9M 1.5G 1% /run > /dev/nvme0n1p2 63G 27G 35G 44% / > tmpfs 7.3G 84M 7.2G

Re: partition reporting full, but not

Keith Bainbridge composed on 2024-02-17 15:44 (UTC+1100): > Yes the / partitions are btrfs df was not designed for the task you gave it. You need to use btrfs filesystem commands: https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-filesystem.html -- Evolution as taught in public schools is,

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 09:52:22PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 01:38:56PM +1100, Keith Bainbridge wrote: > > >> sudo df -h / > > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > > /dev/sda336G 35G 100M 100% / > > First off: you don't need sudo for this, eve

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 17/2/24 13:55, Gremlin wrote: On 2/16/24 21:38, Keith Bainbridge wrote: Good afternoon All I have just rebooted this laptop to ensure it is 'fresh' / is reporting full. Trying to locate where I ran sudo du -hPx --max-depth=1 / 0    /mnt 181M    /boot 15M    /etc 0    /media 236M    /opt

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 17/2/24 13:52, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 01:38:56PM +1100, Keith Bainbridge wrote: >> sudo df -h / Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda336G 35G 100M 100% / First off: you don't need sudo for this, ever. Second: what kind of file syste

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On 2/16/24 21:38, Keith Bainbridge wrote: Good afternoon All I have just rebooted this laptop to ensure it is 'fresh' / is reporting full. Trying to locate where I ran sudo du -hPx --max-depth=1 / 0    /mnt 181M    /boot 15M    /etc 0    /media 236M    /opt 336K    /root 0    /srv 4.0K    /tm

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 01:38:56PM +1100, Keith Bainbridge wrote: > >> sudo df -h / > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > /dev/sda336G 35G 100M 100% / First off: you don't need sudo for this, ever. Second: what kind of file system is this? > sudo du -hPx --max-depth=1

Re: partition reporting full, but not

On Sat 17 Feb 2024 at 13:38:56 (+1100), Keith Bainbridge wrote: > I have just rebooted this laptop to ensure it is 'fresh' > > / is reporting full. > > Trying to locate where I ran > > sudo du -hPx --max-depth=1 / > 0 /mnt > 181M /boot > 15M /etc > 0 /media > 236M /opt > 336K /root

Re: partition appears to be mounted, but not according to umount or lsblk

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 09:19:16AM +, thyme after thyme wrote: > > Charles and tomas, you were both right in your guesses. Thanks a billion > for the help! Glad you found it :) Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: partition appears to be mounted, but not according to umount or lsblk

On 1/20/23, Anssi Saari wrote: > Jude DaShiell writes: > >> I wonder if blkid might be a bit more informative. > > I don't know, I usually run mount without arguments to see what's > mounted or look in the file /proc/mounts. A super simple grep, e.g. "mount|grep sdc", works on it, too. I do it

Re: partition appears to be mounted, but not according to umount or lsblk

Jude DaShiell writes: > I wonder if blkid might be a bit more informative. I don't know, I usually run mount without arguments to see what's mounted or look in the file /proc/mounts.

Re: partition appears to be mounted, but not according to umount or lsblk

Charles and tomas, you were both right in your guesses. Thanks a billion for the help!

Re: partition appears to be mounted, but not according to umount or lsblk

I wonder if blkid might be a bit more informative. Jude "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) . On Fri, 20 Jan 2023, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:03:14PM +,

Re: partition appears to be mounted, but not according to umount or lsblk

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:03:14PM +, thyme after thyme wrote: > Hello lovely debianizers, > > My Debian 10 machine has two physical disks, sda and sdb. The > (encrypted) root filesystem is on sdb, meanwhile I’ve used > fstab/crypttab to mount an (encrypted) partition on sda to > /mnt/data01-h

Re: partition appears to be mounted, but not according to umount or lsblk

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 23:03:14 + thyme after thyme wrote: > However, when i do > user@hostname:/$ sudo umount /mnt/data01-hdd > > umount complains thus: > umount: /mnt/data01-hdd: not mounted. First off, don't tell us what the program did, show us exactly what the program did by copying and p

[SOLVED]Re: Partition unreadable [was: Re: Debian Stretch broken !]

Le 09/04/2020 20:11, Greg Wooledge a écrit : On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 08:04:31PM +0200, Bernard wrote: [ 15541.577] (EE) AIGLX error: dlopen of /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/dri/nouveau_dri.so failed (/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/dri/nouveau_dri.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or dir

Re: Partition unreadable [was: Re: Debian Stretch broken !]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 08:04:31PM +0200, Bernard wrote: > [ 15541.577] (EE) AIGLX error: dlopen of > /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/dri/nouveau_dri.so failed > (/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/dri/nouveau_dri.so: cannot open shared object > file: No such file or directory) You're missing the libgl1-mesa-dri

Re: Partition unreadable [was: Re: Debian Stretch broken !]

Le 09/04/2020 16:44, Greg Wooledge a écrit : On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 04:32:10PM +0200, Bernard wrote: If you're trying to debug X, start simple. Install a traditional window manager, and just name it on the startx command to override the system defaults. $ startx invariably leads to .

Re: Partition unreadable [was: Re: Debian Stretch broken !]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:32 AM Bernard wrote: > > > Le 09/04/2020 15:45, Kent West a écrit : > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 8:29 AM Bernard > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I just realized that in that Debian Stretch system, > > > > I HAVE NO /home//.gconf director

Re: Partition unreadable [was: Re: Debian Stretch broken !]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 04:32:10PM +0200, Bernard wrote: > # tasksel > > a graphical window opens and proposes a choice between Debian Desktop > environment, GNOME, KDE, xfce, MATE... I alternatively chose most of these > including Gnome Desktop env, GNOME, KDE, xfce, MATE. So we don't even known

Re: Partition unreadable [was: Re: Debian Stretch broken !]

Le 09/04/2020 15:45, Kent West a écrit : On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 8:29 AM Bernard mailto:bdebr...@free.fr>> wrote: I just realized that in that Debian Stretch system, I HAVE NO /home//.gconf directory ! It'll rebuild itself when it's needed. The lack of a .gconf directory is p

Re: Partition unreadable [was: Re: Debian Stretch broken !]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 8:29 AM Bernard wrote: > > > I just realized that in that Debian Stretch system, > > I HAVE NO /home//.gconf directory ! > > [ While I have one my laptop using Ubuntu 14.04, also on my old desktop > running Debian Lenny] > > but it didn't rebuild itself so far ! > > What sh

Re: Partition unreadable [was: Re: Debian Stretch broken !]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 03:28:43PM +0200, Bernard wrote: > I just realized that in that Debian Stretch system, > > I HAVE NO /home//.gconf directory ! Uh... yay? > but it didn't rebuild itself so far ! > > What should I do to get it rebuilt ? Run something that uses it. Or, if you don't run a

Re: Partition unreadable [was: Re: Debian Stretch broken !]

Hi Tom, Alexei, Kent and Everyone else, Le 05/04/2020 03:25, Tom Dial a écrit : From the various postings it seems somewhat clear that the system, as such, is not broken. The initial message indicates, I think Felix Miata noted, that there is a problem with gdm starting (probably) gnome.

Re: Partition unreadable [was: Re: Debian Stretch broken !]

On 4/4/20 11:57, Bernard wrote: > Le 04/04/2020 18:16, Andrei POPESCU a écrit : >> On Sb, 04 apr 20, 11:00:06, Bernard wrote: >>> Thanks a lot for this reply >>> >>> The output of the proposed tests are shown on the following screen >>> picture : >>> >>> http://bdebreil.free.fr/IMG_0906.jpg >>>

Re: Partition unreadable [was: Re: Debian Stretch broken !]

On 2020-04-04 10:57, Bernard wrote: Le 04/04/2020 18:16, Andrei POPESCU a écrit : On Sb, 04 apr 20, 11:00:06, Bernard wrote: Thanks a lot for this reply The output of the proposed tests are shown on the following screen picture : http://bdebreil.free.fr/IMG_0906.jpg

Re: Partition unreadable [was: Re: Debian Stretch broken !]

Le 04/04/2020 18:16, Andrei POPESCU a écrit : On Sb, 04 apr 20, 11:00:06, Bernard wrote: Thanks a lot for this reply The output of the proposed tests are shown on the following screen picture : http://bdebreil.free.fr/IMG_0906.jpg .. Please post also the contents of

Re: Partition unreadable [was: Re: Debian Stretch broken !]

On Sb, 04 apr 20, 11:00:06, Bernard wrote: > Thanks a lot for this reply > > The output of the proposed tests are shown on the following screen picture : > > http://bdebreil.free.fr/IMG_0906.jpg > > As for partition sda2 : I don't remember having created this partition when > installing Stretch

Re: Partition unreadable

Bernard composed on 2020-04-04 11:00 (UTC+0200): > http://bdebreil.free.fr/IMG_0906.jpg > As for partition sda2 : I don't remember having created this partition > when installing Stretch on this then newly bought desktop (2 years ago). > Isn'it funny that it shows the exact same size as that of

Re: Partition unreadable [was: Re: Debian Stretch broken !]

Thanks a lot for this reply The output of the proposed tests are shown on the following screen picture : http://bdebreil.free.fr/IMG_0906.jpg As for partition sda2 : I don't remember having created this partition when installing Stretch on this then newly bought desktop (2 years ago). Isn'it

Re: "partition name" versus "filesystem label" -- authoritative references?

On Friday 30 August 2019 07:52:45 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Richard Owlett (2019-08-30 13:42:27) > > > I've just encountered GPT, and thus "partition name", for the first > > time. My web search turned primarily threads titled of form "just > > encountered GPT ..." ;{ Similarly the article

Re: "partition name" versus "filesystem label" -- authoritative references?

On 08/30/2019 06:52 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Richard Owlett (2019-08-30 13:42:27) I've just encountered GPT, and thus "partition name", for the first time. My web search turned primarily threads titled of form "just encountered GPT ..." ;{ Similarly the articles I found were too focus

Re: "partition name" versus "filesystem label" -- authoritative references?

Quoting Richard Owlett (2019-08-30 13:42:27) > I've just encountered GPT, and thus "partition name", for the first > time. My web search turned primarily threads titled of form "just > encountered GPT ..." ;{ Similarly the articles I found were too > focused on "What is a partition?" > > I'm lo

Re: Partition information as text file?

On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 09:26:31AM -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Sat 02 Feb 2019 at 10:58:09 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 07:05:53PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > On Fri 01 Feb 2019 at 11:07:28 (-0600), Richard Owlett wrote: > > > > On 02/01/2019 10:15 AM, David

Re: Partition information as text file?

On Sat 02 Feb 2019 at 10:58:09 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 07:05:53PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > > On Fri 01 Feb 2019 at 11:07:28 (-0600), Richard Owlett wrote: > > > On 02/01/2019 10:15 AM, David Wright wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > Interesting. I thought

Re: Partition information as text file?

On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 07:05:53PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 01 Feb 2019 at 11:07:28 (-0600), Richard Owlett wrote: > > On 02/01/2019 10:15 AM, David Wright wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > > Interesting. I thought Tcl/Tk was for writing GUIs. ... > > > > *CAVEAT* LECTOR > > It is more lik

Re: Partition information as text file?

On Fri 01 Feb 2019 at 11:07:28 (-0600), Richard Owlett wrote: > On 02/01/2019 10:15 AM, David Wright wrote: > > [snip] > > > > Interesting. I thought Tcl/Tk was for writing GUIs. ... > > *CAVEAT* LECTOR > It is more like Tk being a GUI interface for Tcl. Sure, and for several other languages, bu

Re: Partition information as text file?

On Fri 01 Feb 2019 at 13:10:19 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 06:06:18PM +, Joe wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:59:42 -0600 Richard Owlett > > wrote: > > > > > ... a major deficiency of the man page format -- > > > [/begin_rant almost total lack of examples /end

Re: Partition information as text file?

On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 07:30:31PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 01/02/2019 à 16:23, to...@tuxteam.de a écrit : > > > > tomas@trotzki:~$ file /dev/mapper/trotzki-home > > /dev/mapper/trotzki-home: symbolic link to ../dm-4 > > > >Ah. > > > > tomas@trotzki:~$ file /dev/dm-4 > > /dev/dm-4

Re: Partition information as text file?

Le 01/02/2019 à 16:23, to...@tuxteam.de a écrit : tomas@trotzki:~$ file /dev/mapper/trotzki-home /dev/mapper/trotzki-home: symbolic link to ../dm-4 Ah. tomas@trotzki:~$ file /dev/dm-4 /dev/dm-4: block special (254/4) Not yet what we wanted. But: tomas@trotzki:~$ sudo file -s /

Re: Partition information as text file?

Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 06:06:18PM +, Joe wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:59:42 -0600 > > Richard Owlett wrote: > > > > > ... a major deficiency of the man page format -- > > > [/begin_rant almost total lack of examples /end_rant ;] > > > > That's what's expected

Re: Partition information as text file?

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:59:42 -0600 Richard Owlett wrote: > ... a major deficiency of the man page format -- > [/begin_rant almost total lack of examples /end_rant ;] > That's what's expected of man pages. If you want examples, poke around the Net for tutorials, and be prepared to find a wid

Re: Partition information as text file?

On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 06:06:18PM +, Joe wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:59:42 -0600 > Richard Owlett wrote: > > > ... a major deficiency of the man page format -- > > [/begin_rant almost total lack of examples /end_rant ;] > > That's what's expected of man pages. If you want examples, p

Re: Partition information as text file?

On 02/01/2019 10:15 AM, David Wright wrote: [snip] Interesting. I thought Tcl/Tk was for writing GUIs. ... *CAVEAT* LECTOR It is more like Tk being a GUI interface for Tcl.

Re: Partition information as text file?

On Fri 01 Feb 2019 at 11:14:11 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: > Richard Owlett composed on 2019-02-01 07:59 (UTC-0600): > > Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > >> It's what Gparted does and what Richard mentioned as example of the desired > >> information. > > > I'd make that statement stronger. > > My starti

Re: Partition information as text file?

On Fri 01 Feb 2019 at 09:00:06 (-0600), Richard Owlett wrote: > On 02/01/2019 08:22 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > Richard Owlett wrote: > > > [Gparted] PROVED that what I wanted was possible. > > > > Regrettably it does not retrieve the information by some universal info > > program or library, bu

Re: Partition information as text file?

Richard Owlett composed on 2019-02-01 07:59 (UTC-0600): > Thomas Schmitt wrote: >> It's what Gparted does and what Richard mentioned as example of the desired >> information. > I'd make that statement stronger. > My starting point was Gparted displays *ALL* the desired information for > *ALL* m

Re: Partition information as text file?

On Fri 01 Feb 2019 at 16:23:04 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Not yet what we wanted. But: > > tomas@trotzki:~$ sudo file -s /dev/dm-4 > /dev/dm-4: Linux rev 1.0 ext4 filesystem data, > UUID=c5d1ae98-df63-4c04-913d-661b82d38075 (needs journal recovery) (extents) > (64bit) (large files)

Re: Partition information as text file?

On Fri 01 Feb 2019 at 07:59:42 (-0600), Richard Owlett wrote: > On 01/31/2019 02:03 PM, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Richard Owlett wrote: > > > > > What bugs me is Gparted [though it does not output text] reports > > > > > used/unused space on each partition/file system. > > > > i wrot

Re: Partition information as text file?

On Friday, February 01, 2019 09:22:10 AM Thomas Schmitt wrote: > If you refer to Gparted's man page, then the answer is obviously that > nobody expects hard info from the manual of a clicky-colorful GUI program. > (I.e. not "RTFM" but "RTSL" = "Read The Source, Luke.") I hope that's not the case (

Re: Partition information as text file?

On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:00:06AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 02/01/2019 08:22 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote: [...] > >So you need one or more scripts ... Then the script[s] would put out > >the retrieved numbers in the text format which you desire. > > The need for *ME* to write a script was

Re: Partition information as text file?

On 02/01/2019 08:22 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote: Hi, Richard Owlett wrote: [Gparted] PROVED that what I wanted was possible. Regrettably it does not retrieve the information by some universal info program or library, but rather has particular info sources for each of the supported filesystems. (

Re: Partition information as text file?

Hi, Richard Owlett wrote: > [Gparted] PROVED that what I wanted was possible. Regrettably it does not retrieve the information by some universal info program or library, but rather has particular info sources for each of the supported filesystems. (There are more filesystems around than i can see

Re: Partition information as text file?

On 01/31/2019 02:03 PM, Thomas Schmitt wrote: Hi, Richard Owlett wrote: What bugs me is Gparted [though it does not output text] reports used/unused space on each partition/file system. i wrote: [...] Gparted runs external programs, which a simple shell script could do too. David Wright w

Re: Partition information as text file?

Hi, Richard Owlett wrote: > > > What bugs me is Gparted [though it does not output text] reports > > > used/unused space on each partition/file system. i wrote: > > [...] Gparted runs external programs, which a simple > > shell script could do too. David Wright wrote: > So going back to the OP,

Re: Partition information as text file?

On Thu 31 Jan 2019 at 15:54:57 (+0100), Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Richard Owlett wrote: > > Though I not a C programmer, their organization leads to answers for my > > questions [even a few I hadn't asked]. > > It's C++ in this case. (bleh ...) > > But what i meant is that Gparted runs external pro

Re: Partition information as text file?

Hi, Richard Owlett wrote: > Though I not a C programmer, their organization leads to answers for my > questions [even a few I hadn't asked]. It's C++ in this case. (bleh ...) But what i meant is that Gparted runs external programs, which a simple shell script could do too. https://github.com/GN

Re: Partition information as text file?

On 01/30/2019 10:04 AM, Joe wrote: [snip] I suspect that to get exactly what you want, you will need to write a script that uses basic tools, checking for mounted filesystems and then temporarily mounting as necessary. Yes ;} But before this thread I didn't have needed background. By the wa

Re: Partition information as text file?

On 01/29/2019 10:16 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote: Hi, Richard Owlett wrote: Gparted displays the desired data in the GUI, but I see no way to get that information as a text stream. Well, it seems to inquire the info by filesystem specific means. The method is obviously named set_used_sectors(). S

Re: Talking about loop devices (was: Re: Partition information as text file?)

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:15:58PM +1100, David wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 02:52, wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >A plain regular file can be made available as a device > >via the loopback driver > > I have a small addition to this excellent message. > > There is very widespread mixup o

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >