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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 02/13/2014 10:00 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote: > >>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:49:08 +0100 > >>> Goffredo Baroncelli <[email protected]> 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.
Hugo.
--
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
PGP key: 65E74AC0 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
--- Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. ---
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
