System monitor displays incorrect disk usage sizes

thank you for your bug report, could you run gvfs-mount -li and attach the log to the bug?

could you run mount and df -h and attach those logs to the bug?

Closing this bug report as no further information has been provided. Please feel free to reopen this bug if you can provide the information asked for. Thanks!.

Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/host/ubuntu/disks/root.disk
                       27G 4.7G 21G 19% /
varrun 1014M 212K 1014M 1% /var/run
varlock 1014M 0 1014M 0% /var/lock
udev 1014M 44K 1014M 1% /dev
devshm 1014M 48K 1014M 1% /dev/shm
lrm 1014M 39M 975M 4% /lib/modules/2.6.24-19-generic/volatile
gvfs-fuse-daemon 27G 4.7G 21G 19% /home/marc/.gvfs

the is no boot in this log and you didn't add all the requested logs either

Here is the output of mount, which I somehow overlooked. Am I missing any other logs? I posted everything that was output from these commands and I'm not sure why boot didn't show up.

marc@marc-desktop:~$ mount
/host/ubuntu/disks/root.disk on / type ext3 (rw,errors=remount-ro)
proc on /proc type proc (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev)
/sys on /sys type sysfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev)
varrun on /var/run type tmpfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev,mode=0755)
varlock on /var/lock type tmpfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev,mode=1777)
udev on /dev type tmpfs (rw,mode=0755)
devshm on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
lrm on /lib/modules/2.6.24-19-generic/volatile type tmpfs (rw)
/host/ubuntu/disks/boot on /boot type none (rw,bind)
securityfs on /sys/kernel/security type securityfs (rw)
gvfs-fuse-daemon on /home/marc/.gvfs type fuse.gvfs-fuse-daemon (rw,nosuid,nodev,user=marc)

Also, here is the output of du, in case you are interested
marc@marc-desktop:/$ du -sh boot
36M boot

how do you mount this boot directory?

We are closing this bug report as it lacks the information, described in the previous comments, we need to investigate the problem further. However, please reopen it if you can give us the missing information and don't hesitate to submit bug reports in the future.

Apparently I made a mistake by replying to the email notification for the last question of how I mount the boot directory. Below is an excerpt of what I sent in the email. What other information are you missing?

I did the default install for dual booting without a separate partition for linux. There is only 1 partition for linux (root), and it resides in the Windows filesystem. I apologize for not remembering the Ubuntu terminology for this type of install - the one where the linux install resides on the windows filesystem.

I don't manually mount anything, it was all default.

Here is a cat of the fstab
# /etc/fstab: static file system information.
#
# <file system> <mount point> <type> <options> <dump> <pass>
proc /proc proc defaults 0 0
/host/ubuntu/disks/root.disk / ext3 loop,errors=remount-ro 0 1
/host/ubuntu/disks/boot /boot none bind 0 0
/host/ubuntu/disks/swap.disk none swap loop,sw 0 0
/dev/scd0 /media/cdrom0 udf,iso9660 user,noauto,exec,utf8 0 0
/dev/scd1 /media/cdrom1 udf,iso9660 user,noauto,exec,utf8 0 0
/dev/fd0 /media/floppy0 auto rw,user,noauto,exec,utf8 0 0

changing to new, the mount is a special one and the issue is likely an upstream one

any news? did you sent it upstream? may you tell us the bug number?

Closing this bug report as no further information has been provided. Please feel free to reopen this bug if you can provide the information asked for. Thanks!.

Are you expecting more information from me???? No other information was requested. What is the information you are looking for?

somebody having the issue should send the bug upstream where the people writting the software will read it too

Pedro and Sebastien,
I know this is going to sound harsh, will probably upset a lot of people, and probably get me kicked off of here, but please think about the user experience before doing so. Please take this criticism and use it to make the user experience better. We want to make Ubuntu as pleasant to use as possible - and that should include bug submission. I appreciate the hard work and dedication to this open-source effort, but I feel like this should be brought out in the open.

I thought I did exactly what Sebastien said - "somebody having the issue should send the bug upstream where the people writting the software will read it too". I was having an issue with Ubuntu and I sent it "upstream" to this bug reporting system where I assumed "the people writing the software will read it". I reported the bug here and I assumed that someone would investigate and persue it from there. This practice of marking the status invalid and telling the person who submitted it that they need to send it upstream does not promote bug submission. Frankly, it is a hassle because I don't know where "upstream" I'm supposed to send it. I wouldn't know what to do even if I could find "upstream". Did anyone consider that???

When Sebastien said "changing to new" because it was an "upstream" problem, I assumed this was all taken care of an that someone from the Ubuntu community would be addressing it and passing it on as necessary. When Pedro asked "did you sent it upstream", I assumed Pedro was asking Sebastien because upstream is ambiguous from my point of view and no one directed the question to me.

I just used the bug submission functionality inside Ubuntu to submit a small issue that I was experiencing. I didn't know I was going to have to walk it through every step of the process. I don't mind collecting data, but if you have several things you want the person to do, it would be better if someone provided a list of the data to collect upfront instead of pinging back and forth and not explaining exactly what needs to be done. This is not very user-friendly and certainly falls short of "Linux for Humans". In all likelyhood, the majority of Ubuntu users would have less experience with Linux than I have and requiring all these steps to be performed with little to no explanation is an almost sure-fire way to bury bugs. So the question is - are the bugs really being fixed or are they all just being deemed invalid because the user, who thought it would be a simple one or two step process to improve the product, just gives up after being asked to do task after task?

In addition, if you are addressing one person in particular out of a group of people, it would be more effective if you addressed them by name or some other unique identifier, so they will know you are talking to them and not someone else in the thread.

I hope I have not offended anyone, because that is not the intent. I just wanted to emphasize that one-liner responses using phrases like "this is an upstream problem", not explaining what to do or who should do it, and then closing out the ticket are just not effective problem resolution.

Thank you for your effort.

thank you for your comment, there is no offense there, the ubuntu bug triager do try to get useful informations on bugs to send those to the people writting the software so they can be worked. in this case there is nobody in the ubuntu team getting your issue or knowing the code enough to know what informations to request, in such case it would not be efficient to open a bug upstream without being able to reply to their questions, that's why it has been asked if you could contact them directly since you get the issue and could reply to their question which is not the case for bug triagers