On 02/15/2014 11:23 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Hugo Mills <h...@carfax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 07:27:57PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>>> On 02/14/2014 07:11 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:57:03 +0100
>>>> Goffredo Baroncelli <kreij...@libero.it> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/13/2014 10:00 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:49:08 +0100
>>>>>> Goffredo Baroncelli <kreij...@libero.it> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the comments, however I don't like du not usage; but you are
>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>> when you don't like "disk-usage". What about "btrfs filesystem
>>>>>>> chunk-usage" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I don't see the point of being super-pedantic here, i.e.
>>>>>> "look this
>>>>>> is not just filesystem usage, this is filesystem CHUNK usage"...
>>>>>> Consistency
>>>>>> of having a matching "dev usage" and "fi usage" would have been nicer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What about "btrfs filesystem chunk-usage" ?
>>>>
>>>> Uhm? Had to reread this several times, but it looks like you're repeating
>>>> exactly the same question that I was already answering in the quoted part.
>>>>
>>>> To clarify even more, personally I'd like if there would have been "btrfs
>>>> dev
>>>> usage" and "btrfs fi usage". Do not see the need to specifically make the
>>>> 2nd
>>>> one "chunk-usage" instead of simply "usage".
>>>
>>> I don't like "usage" because it to me seems to be too much generic.
>>> Because both "btrfs filesystem disk-usage" and "btrfs device disk-usage"
>>> report about chunk (and/or block group) infos, I am investigating
>>> about
>>> - btrfs filesystem chunk-usage
>>> - btrfs device chunk-usage
>>
>> Most people aren't going to know (or care) what a chunk is. I'm
>> much happier with Roman's suggestion of btrfs {fi,dev} usage.
>
> Or btrfs filesystem examine, or btrfs filesystem detail, which are
> semi-consistent with mdadm for obtaining similar data.
>
I have to agree with Chris: looking at the output of "btrfs fi disk-usage"
$ sudo ./btrfs filesystem disk-usage -t /mnt/btrfs1/
Data Data Metadata Metadata System System
Single RAID6 Single RAID5 Single RAID5 Unallocated
/dev/vdb 8.00MB 1.00GB 8.00MB 1.00GB 4.00MB 4.00MB 97.98GB
/dev/vdc - 1.00GB - 1.00GB - 4.00MB 98.00GB
/dev/vdd - 1.00GB - 1.00GB - 4.00MB 98.00GB
/dev/vde - 1.00GB - 1.00GB - 4.00MB 98.00GB
====== ======= ======== ======== ====== ======= ===========
Total 8.00MB 2.00GB 8.00MB 3.00GB 4.00MB 12.00MB 391.97GB
Used 0.00 11.25MB 0.00 36.00KB 0.00 4.00KB
it is hard to tell that this can be named "filesystem usage". I think that
"details" or "examine" is a better name.
Regarding "btrfs device usage", it seems to me more coherent. But as
reported before consistency also matters, so now I am inclined to use
"detail" (or examine) also for "btrfs device"
>
> Chris Murphy
>
Regards
Goffredo
--
gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it>
Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
