Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #203870 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-03 16:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2019-01-04 16:00 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 94 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 16:00 +0100
Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 17:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem steve <dlist@bluewin.ch> - 2019-01-03 17:40 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2019-01-03 18:30 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 18:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 17:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 18:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 18:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-01-03 19:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 20:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-01-03 20:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-01-03 20:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 21:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 21:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-03 21:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 22:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Frank Weißer <linux@weisser-ol.de> - 2019-01-04 10:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 21:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-03 22:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 23:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-03 23:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 01:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-04 11:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 13:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-04 13:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 19:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 20:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 20:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 21:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 21:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 20:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 22:10 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 08:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 20:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 20:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 20:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2019-01-03 23:10 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-04 14:10 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 03:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-01-04 14:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 14:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-01-04 15:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 19:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-04 19:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 21:00 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-01-04 21:30 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 23:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 19:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 01:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-05 06:30 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-01-04 15:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 18:10 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-03 21:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-03 19:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 19:00 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 20:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 20:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 21:40 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 21:50 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 22:10 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2019-01-04 03:20 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 09:10 +0100
Re: Fwd: Upgrade Problem Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 03:40 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-04 04:50 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2019-01-04 09:50 +0100
Overhead of LVM (Re: Upgrade Problem) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-01-04 14:20 +0100
Re: Overhead of LVM (Re: Upgrade Problem) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-01-04 14:30 +0100
Re: Overhead of LVM (Re: Upgrade Problem) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 05:10 +0100
Re: Overhead of LVM (Re: Upgrade Problem) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-01-05 08:40 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-01-04 21:10 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Stefan Krusche <linux@stefan-krusche.de> - 2019-03-10 14:30 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-04 11:20 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 18:20 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 18:40 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 03:20 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-01-04 03:50 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2019-01-04 10:00 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-04 10:40 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 17:30 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-04 19:50 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 21:30 +0100
Re: allocating disk space (was: Upgrade Problem) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-05 01:40 +0100
Re: allocating disk space (was: Upgrade Problem) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-10 01:10 +0100
Re: allocating disk space Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-11 08:20 +0100
Re: allocating disk space David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-13 14:20 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 11:50 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-01-04 13:00 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-01-04 14:30 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2019-01-03 20:00 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-03 20:40 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-03 21:00 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-01-03 21:10 +0100
Re: Upgrade Problem Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 16:00 +0100
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-03 22:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcipA-8vq-35@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203910 |
Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > /dev/sda1 23G 23G 0 100% / bingo - the root of all evil you need to free up some space somewhere in / Perhaps you have some stuff in root home $ sudo du -hs /root If not - look where the place is gone? regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | songbird <songbird@anthive.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 03:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcnfz-2Vs-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203912 |
deloptes wrote: > Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > >> /dev/sda1 23G 23G 0 100% / > > bingo - the root of all evil yep. > you need to free up some space somewhere in / > > Perhaps you have some stuff in root home > > $ sudo du -hs /root > > If not - look where the place is gone? > > regards often you can get quite a bit of space from the package cache. as root use autoclean or clean (if you have a fast connection where downloading packages goes quickly). # apt-get autoclean or # apt-get clean sorry about my mistake earlier as i did mean: # apt-get install libc-bin --reinstall but you have to have free space on the device first. songbird
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 09:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcsIh-6iX-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203930 |
songbird wrote: > often you can get quite a bit of space from the > package cache. > but his var is on dedicated partition
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 03:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcnyV-31g-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203910 |
On Thursday 03 January 2019 15:39:51 Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > On 01/03/2019 03:31 PM, deloptes wrote: > > cat /etc/debian_version > > root@AbNormal:/home/comp# cat /etc/debian_version > 9.6 > root@AbNormal:/home/comp# df -hl > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > udev 3.9G 0 3.9G 0% /dev > tmpfs 789M 18M 772M 3% /run > /dev/sda1 23G 23G 0 100% / Bingo! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Now we are at the heart of the problem. Go get a 2Tbyte (< $100 USD these days) hard drive and reinstall. 40Gb quickly became overcrowded on a full kit of an Amiga 2000 nearly 25 years ago. And in your case, let the installer create the directories it needs, don't try to second guess and make your own partitions. Disconnect the data cables from sdb and sdc to protect them while installing, they may have data you'll need after the new install is up and running. > tmpfs 3.9G 18M 3.9G 1% /dev/shm > tmpfs 5.0M 8.0K 5.0M 1% /run/lock > tmpfs 3.9G 0 3.9G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup > /dev/sda7 1.9G 6.5M 1.7G 1% /tmp > /dev/sda5 9.2G 6.0G 2.8G 69% /var > /dev/sda8 416G 103G 292G 27% /home > /dev/sdc1 20G 301M 19G 2% /sdc1 > /dev/sdc2 439G 169G 270G 39% /sdc2 > /dev/sdb1 1.8T 288G 1.5T 17% /sdb1 > tmpfs 789M 4.0K 789M 1% /run/user/110 > tmpfs 789M 28K 789M 1% /run/user/1000 > root@AbNormal:/home/comp# Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 04:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcoEF-3Kf-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203910 |
Stephen P. Molnar composed on 2019-01-03 15:39 (UTC-0500): > root@AbNormal:/home/comp# df -hl > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on ... > /dev/sda1 23G 23G 0 100% / As others have noted, this is your root if not entire problem. du -h on Stretch host fi965 here: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda25 5.4G 3.5G 1.7G 69% / After apt autoclean /dev/sda25 5.4G 2.7G 2.5G 52% / Your / is more than 4.2 times the size of mine. Your /var/cache/apt/archives/ might contain more than 10 times the rest of / combined, most of which are probably packages used by Jessie, obsolete now that you're on Stretch. Were it here I'd just navigate to /var/cache/apt/archives in administrator mode and delete either all of it, or everything older than the date you performed your dist-upgrade. Of course, apt can free cache space too. ;) -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 09:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xctkZ-6w2-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203937 |
Hello,
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 10:47:26PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> Stephen P. Molnar composed on 2019-01-03 15:39 (UTC-0500):
>
> > root@AbNormal:/home/comp# df -hl
> > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> ...
> > /dev/sda1 23G 23G 0 100% /
>
> As others have noted, this is your root if not entire problem.
It seems so, and it should be fairly easy to fix. Stephen, please
resist the cries from others to "just reinstall". I think it would
be an unnecessary step and a sad outcome.
> Your / is more than 4.2 times the size of mine.
Certainly 23G in / seems excessive. There's bound to be something in
there that can be removed.
> Your /var/cache/apt/archives/ might contain more than 10 times the rest of /
> combined,
Unfortunately this is the wrong direction to go because Stephen
already has /var on a separate partition. Any savings made here will
not help for /.
It's unfortunate that LVM was not used as it would make juggling
space between the multiple filesystems a lot easier. Oh well.
Stephen, I think you're going to have to analyse where the space is
being used. If you use a graphical desktop then there might be a
graphical application that can help with this. On GNOME it's called
Disk Usage Analyzer. On the command line you could try something
like:
$ sudo du -xh / | sort -rh | less
Explanation:
"sudo" - do something as root
"du -xh /" - report disk usage of the / filesystem without going
into other filesystems ("x"). Report figures in human-readable units
("h").
"sort -rh" - pipe that through sort to get a sorted list, in reverse
order (biggest first, "r"), with the input being in human-readable
units ("h").
"less" - finally pipe it through the pager "less", so that it
doesn't all scroll off screen.
Hopefully the top few entries stand out to you as some large files
you put somewhere and can do without. Sadly unless things stand out
to you, it's going to be hard for us to recommend what you can
remove as we don't know what is on there that you need.
I find it unlikely that you have installed 23G of packages through
normal apt and as you are not a sysadmin I hesitate to suggest that
you start removing packages that you aren't 100% familiar with, in
case you break your system. But, you could do:
$ dpkg -l | less
to get a list of all packages installed through the package manager,
to see if there is anything that stands out to you.
My hunch though is that you will have a lot of downloaded files in
/root or some big apps from outside the package manager installed in
/opt.
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 14:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Overhead of LVM (Re: Upgrade Problem) |
| Message-ID | <xcxyi-Jv-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203941 |
On Friday, January 04, 2019 03:49:37 AM Andy Smith wrote: > It's unfortunate that LVM was not used as it would make juggling > space between the multiple filesystems a lot easier. Oh well. I guess I should consider using LVM on my next install. Does it incur any overhead during normal disk operations (I mean, like an extra level of indirection or anything like that)? Aside: just for laughs, my root (on Wheezy) is: rhk@s19:/rhk/askRhk$ df / Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/disk/by-uuid/8<elided>9 1921036 465852 1357600 26% /
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 14:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overhead of LVM (Re: Upgrade Problem) |
| Message-ID | <xcxHX-MG-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203968 |
Hi. On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 08:13:38AM -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, January 04, 2019 03:49:37 AM Andy Smith wrote: > > It's unfortunate that LVM was not used as it would make juggling > > space between the multiple filesystems a lot easier. Oh well. > > I guess I should consider using LVM on my next install. Does it incur any > overhead during normal disk operations (I mean, like an extra level of > indirection or anything like that)? > > Aside: just for laughs, my root (on Wheezy) is: > > rhk@s19:/rhk/askRhk$ df / > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used > Available Use% Mounted on > /dev/disk/by-uuid/8<elided>9 1921036 465852 1357600 26% / # pvs PV VG Fmt Attr PSize PFree /dev/md10 nas lvm2 a-- 14.55t 10.43t # hdparm -Tt /dev/md10 /dev/md10: Timing cached reads: 1224 MB in 2.00 seconds = 612.05 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 1210 MB in 3.00 seconds = 403.28 MB/sec # hdparm -Tt /dev/nas/root /dev/nas/root: Timing cached reads: 1224 MB in 2.00 seconds = 611.55 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 1154 MB in 3.00 seconds = 384.42 MB/sec I see a difference, but I's something I can live with. Reco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 05:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overhead of LVM (Re: Upgrade Problem) |
| Message-ID | <xcLrz-Iz-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203970 |
On Friday, January 04, 2019 08:23:59 AM Reco wrote: > # pvs > PV VG Fmt Attr PSize PFree > /dev/md10 nas lvm2 a-- 14.55t 10.43t > > # hdparm -Tt /dev/md10 > /dev/md10: > Timing cached reads: 1224 MB in 2.00 seconds = 612.05 MB/sec > Timing buffered disk reads: 1210 MB in 3.00 seconds = 403.28 MB/sec > > # hdparm -Tt /dev/nas/root > /dev/nas/root: > Timing cached reads: 1224 MB in 2.00 seconds = 611.55 MB/sec > Timing buffered disk reads: 1154 MB in 3.00 seconds = 384.42 MB/sec > > I see a difference, but I's something I can live with. Thanks very much! I need to learn more about pvs (I did google the man page), but I assume the /dev/md10 and /dev/nas/root are two ways of referring to the same partition, one within LVM, and one not?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 08:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Overhead of LVM (Re: Upgrade Problem) |
| Message-ID | <xcOIN-2z4-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204068 |
Hi.
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 11:03:48PM -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 04, 2019 08:23:59 AM Reco wrote:
> > # pvs
> > PV VG Fmt Attr PSize PFree
> > /dev/md10 nas lvm2 a-- 14.55t 10.43t
> >
> > # hdparm -Tt /dev/md10
> > /dev/md10:
> > Timing cached reads: 1224 MB in 2.00 seconds = 612.05 MB/sec
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 1210 MB in 3.00 seconds = 403.28 MB/sec
> >
> > # hdparm -Tt /dev/nas/root
> > /dev/nas/root:
> > Timing cached reads: 1224 MB in 2.00 seconds = 611.55 MB/sec
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 1154 MB in 3.00 seconds = 384.42 MB/sec
> >
> > I see a difference, but I's something I can live with.
>
> Thanks very much!
>
> I need to learn more about pvs (I did google the man page), but I assume the
> /dev/md10 and /dev/nas/root are two ways of referring to the same partition,
> one within LVM, and one not?
md10 is a RAID10 consisting of 4 HDDs. No partitions, just
straightforward block devices.
/dev/nas/root is a logical volume (/ filesystem in this case), it
resides on this md10, as 'pvs' output shows.
Storage hierarchy is a as follows (lsblk, same for sdb, sdc and sdd):
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
sda 8:0 1 7.3T 0 disk
└─md0 9:0 0 7.3T 0 raid1
└─md10 9:10 0 14.6T 0 raid0
├─nas-root 254:2 0 15.3G 0 lvm /
So yes, both md10 and /dev/nas/root are two ways of referring to the
same set of bytes on disks.
Reco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 21:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcDX4-4Dd-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203941 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 4/01/19 9:49 PM, Andy Smith wrote: > Stephen, I think you're going to have to analyse where the space is > being used. If you use a graphical desktop then there might be a > graphical application that can help with this. On GNOME it's called > Disk Usage Analyzer. On the command line you could try something > like: > > $ sudo du -xh / | sort -rh | less I find ncdu very useful for this - it's a full-screen terminal-based interactive du, and lets you drill down to find where your space is used. Difficult to install if apt isn't working, but in the past (IIRC) I've just copied the binary from another machine. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Krusche <linux@stefan-krusche.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-10 14:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xA6GD-2SY-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204024 |
Am Freitag, 4. Januar 2019 schrieb Richard Hector: > On 4/01/19 9:49 PM, Andy Smith wrote: > > Stephen, I think you're going to have to analyse where the space is > > being used. If you use a graphical desktop then there might be a > > graphical application that can help with this. On GNOME it's called > > Disk Usage Analyzer. On the command line you could try something > > like: > > > > $ sudo du -xh / | sort -rh | less > > I find ncdu very useful for this - it's a full-screen terminal-based > interactive du, and lets you drill down to find where your space is > used. Thanks for the hint. It's a pretty cool program. Kind regards, Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 11:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcuK6-7uH-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203937 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Felix Miata (2019-01-03): > As others have noted, this is your root if not entire problem. There is still the very worrying problem that ldconfig reported "ENOENT 2 No such file or directory" instead of "ENOSPC 28 No space left on device". This is a bug, it should be reported. Regards, -- Nicolas George
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-03 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xceP0-6kw-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203870 |
On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 09:54:44 -0500 "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > I am running Debian Stretch and have just encountered a problem during > a routine apt-get dist-upgrade. > > Specifically, it failed with the following error messages. > > E: libc-bin: subprocess installed post-installation script returned > error exit status 1 > > Please advise. Errors aside. Why were you dist-upgrading? Were you trying to upgrade to Testing? Or was is for a "held back" package, etc? Please clarify. Did you do apt update and apt upgrade first before the dist-upgrade? B
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-03 18:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcf8m-6qM-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203879 |
On 01/03/2019 12:19 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 09:54:44 -0500 > "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> I am running Debian Stretch and have just encountered a problem during >> a routine apt-get dist-upgrade. >> >> Specifically, it failed with the following error messages. >> >> E: libc-bin: subprocess installed post-installation script returned >> error exit status 1 >> >> Please advise. > Errors aside. Why were you dist-upgrading? Were you trying to upgrade > to Testing? Or was is for a "held back" package, etc? Please clarify. > > Did you do apt update and apt upgrade first before the dist-upgrade? > > B > Yes, I did update first. Further, both aapt and apt-get generate the same error messages. -- Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. Consultant www.molecular-modeling.net (614)312-7528 (c) Skype: smolnar1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 03:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcnfA-2Vs-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203882 |
On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 12:37:36 -0500 "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On 01/03/2019 12:19 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 09:54:44 -0500 > > "Stephen P. Molnar" <s.molnar@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > >> I am running Debian Stretch and have just encountered a problem during > >> a routine apt-get dist-upgrade. > >> > >> Specifically, it failed with the following error messages. > >> > >> E: libc-bin: subprocess installed post-installation script returned > >> error exit status 1 > >> > >> Please advise. > > Errors aside. Why were you dist-upgrading? Were you trying to upgrade > > to Testing? Or was is for a "held back" package, etc? Please clarify. > > > > Did you do apt update and apt upgrade first before the dist-upgrade? > > > > B > > > Yes, I did update first. Further, both aapt and apt-get generate the > same error messages. I see from a later response that your / partition is 100% full. That will defintely cause problems. Whether it's THE problem, we won't know until you clean out / to less than 100%, say at least 90%. Less would be better. I don't know why your / is 100% full. I'm running Stretch and my 20GB / is only at 31%, and /var. /tmp, /usr are not separate partitons. Even on my Wheezy install which I ran for 5 years, / never was higher than 50% full and it was only a 16GB partition. B
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 03:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcnIC-35i-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203931 |
On 1/3/19 7:09 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote: > I see from a later response that your / partition is 100% full. That > will defintely cause problems. Whether it's THE problem, we won't know > until you clean out / to less than 100%, say at least 90%. Less would > be better. > > I don't know why your / is 100% full. I'm running Stretch and my > 20GB / is only at 31%, and /var. /tmp, /usr are not separate > partitons. Even on my Wheezy install which I ran for 5 years, / > never was higher than 50% full and it was only a 16GB partition. > > B > My guess? /home is on the same partition as /, which is a common setup for most end users. Running lsblk is one way to tell if this is the case. I will echo what others have said. Free up some disk space, then try again. -Matt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 10:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xctuF-6z7-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203934 |
Hello, On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 02:47:52AM +0000, Matthew Crews wrote: > My guess? /home is on the same partition as /, which is a common setup > for most end users. Running lsblk is one way to tell if this is the case. >From one of Stephen's earlier emails: root@AbNormal:/home/comp# df -hl Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on udev 3.9G 0 3.9G 0% /dev tmpfs 789M 18M 772M 3% /run /dev/sda1 23G 23G 0 100% / tmpfs 3.9G 18M 3.9G 1% /dev/shm tmpfs 5.0M 8.0K 5.0M 1% /run/lock tmpfs 3.9G 0 3.9G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup /dev/sda7 1.9G 6.5M 1.7G 1% /tmp /dev/sda5 9.2G 6.0G 2.8G 69% /var /dev/sda8 416G 103G 292G 27% /home /dev/sdc1 20G 301M 19G 2% /sdc1 /dev/sdc2 439G 169G 270G 39% /sdc2 /dev/sdb1 1.8T 288G 1.5T 17% /sdb1 tmpfs 789M 4.0K 789M 1% /run/user/110 tmpfs 789M 28K 789M 1% /run/user/1000 i.e. /home is already on a separate partition. Several people have now suggested saving space in a bits of the filesystem that Stephen has on dedicated partitions, so this is not helpful. This partitioning scheme seems really odd and unwieldy. So much wasted space on partitions that will never need anything like what they have been assigned. This seems like a great example of how not to partition a system - anyone thinking of using this many partitions really should consider LVM in future. Anyway, Stephen, you need to focus on finding useless things in / and either removing them or moving them elsewhere. If it's just data then it looks like somewhere under /home would be a good choice as it has 292G available. Ask before deleting anything you don't fully understand. Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 10:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcu7o-729-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203942 |
Andy Smith composed on 2019-01-04 08:57 (UTC): > Several people have now suggested saving space in a bits of the > filesystem that Stephen has on dedicated partitions, so this is not > helpful. > This partitioning scheme seems really odd and unwieldy. Indeed. Considering the absence of a sysadmin, absence of 2 possible primary partitions on sda, and the absence of sda6, it makes me wonder what output from fdisk -l /dev/sda and fstab look like, and whether the upgrade included any partitioning changes that account for a lot of what's been left behind on /. IOW, what's behind the partitioning that exists, not just what it is that's causing the huge consumption on /. Maybe time would be better spent on a repartitioning and reinstallation than digging for causes. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 17:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcAwa-2tf-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203944 |
On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 04:30:00 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote: > Andy Smith composed on 2019-01-04 08:57 (UTC): > > Several people have now suggested saving space in a bits of the > > filesystem that Stephen has on dedicated partitions, so this is not > > helpful. > > > This partitioning scheme seems really odd and unwieldy. > > Indeed. Considering the absence of a sysadmin, What's so unusual about that? For a long time I ran linux and work but didn't consider myself an "operator" or "sysadmin". Employees in those categories ran closed shops of MS and Apple kit, plus a splinter group running what they considered "proper" unix on kit that I couldn't start to afford. Most of mine was 2nd hand PC cast offs. > absence of 2 possible primary partitions on sda, If the OP partitioned an MBR disk intending to subdivide the filesystem, then it might be expected that they create an extended partition. Why bother with holding off until you've got two primary partitions set up first? > and the absence of sda6, I assume that's swap. > it makes me wonder what output from fdisk -l /dev/sda and fstab look > like, and whether the upgrade included any partitioning changes that > account for a lot of what's been left behind on /. One could reboot into single user and find out whether there's a lot of dross hidden under the mount points before /var and so on are mounted (which I think might be what you're saying). But while the system is currently running, a comparison of du -shx and df for / might give a hint. > IOW, what's behind the partitioning that exists, not just what it is that's causing the huge consumption on /. Maybe time would be better spent on a repartitioning and reinstallation than digging for causes. Maybe, but the OP would become a better sysadmin by learning something during the cleanup. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web