Wendy Cheng wrote: > Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> this is purely cosmetic and I didn't prepare a patch but see this: >> >> given a 4GB block device (just as an example): >> >> /dev/nbd2 3,9G 518M 3,4G 14% /mnt/gfs2 >> /dev/nbd1 3,1G 20K 3,1G 1% /mnt/gfs >> >> you can see that gfs1 masks the device size to hide the journals, while gfs2 >> shows the journal as "in use" space. >> >> would it be possible to make gfs1 consistent with gfs2 (and probably the >> rest of >> the world) by reporting the data in the same way? is it possible to do it >> without breaking anything? >> >> > I would think it is ok but this is arguable.
I mean no flamewar :) > Say in ext3 case, if the > journal is on an external device, will you count it as "in use" space ? No, not really. it's not on the same device. > I never heard our users complain about this (maybe until now ? :) ). It's more curiosity rather than a complain. My first concern looking at df -h was (so to speak because I knew it was due to the journals): "3.1GB device? but I allocated 4..." > Changing this may cause some confusions with GFS1's existing > installation base (say customers may start to complain.. after RHEL x.y, > we start to see diskspace usage jump or something like that ?). The free disk % won't change and yes, I understand that you would see more disk in use, but also the real device size would increase and maintain the same balance. Anyway I agree that it could be confusing with both approaches. Thanks Fabio -- I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse.
