[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: strange problem with file system full (fwd)
- Subject: Re: strange problem with file system full (fwd)
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 14:55:19 -0600 (MDT)
===============================================================================
Robb Kambic Unidata Program Center
Software Engineer III Univ. Corp for Atmospheric Research
address@hidden WWW: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/
===============================================================================
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:24:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: address@hidden
To: weather <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: strange problem with file system full
I get the same sort of behavior with ldm 5.0.8 and AIX 4.2. Did not
get this behavior with ldm 5.0.1, as I recall.
The little bit of experimentation I've done seems to indicate that if
an 'ldm' user remains logged in, the file system space released by
scouring is not given over to the operating system. Two solutions
are possible: as you found out, stopping and re-starting ldm (which
we now do automatically every day, but even this is not foolproof...
sometimes a process hangs and the re-start doesn't work), or
ensuring that no user 'ldm' is logged in continually. If you find
a real solution, I'm all ears.
Bill
________________________________
William T. Corcoran Southwest Missouri State University
address@hidden Springfield, Missouri 65804
(417) 836-5781 Department of Geography
http://cirrus.smsu.edu for my view of the weather
On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, weather wrote:
> I don't know if these are related to the LDM (5.0.8) but when
> I came in this morning my root file system was full on our SPARC
> running Solaris 7. LDM writes its output to a different file
> system on a different disk and writes nothing to the root
> file system. But wehn I saw the full root filesystem I stopped
> the LDM and immediately the disk usage on / went from 100% to
> 72% (what it was last night) I did not delete anything.
> Anyone ever seen this?
>
> Thanks,
> Robert Mullenax
>
>