Hi Hugo,
On 09/28/2012 10:58 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 09:17:59AM +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:02:35 +0200
Goffredo Baroncelli<kreij...@libero.it> wrote:
[...]
So that you can use, say, "read" in the shell to extract data from
each line. To that end, there should be a space between the value and
the unit throughout.
Details:
Chunk-type Mode Allocated Used Free
---------- ---- --------- -------- ---------
Minor thing: The underlines are largely superfluous. Few basic CL
tools I can think of use them.
Ok
Data Single 4.01GB 2.16GB 1.87GB
System DUP 16.00MB 4.00KB 7.99MB
System Single 4.00MB 0.00 4.00MB
Metadata DUP 6.00GB 429.16MB 2.57GB
Metadata Single 8.00MB 0.00 8.00MB
I think we need another column here, to indicate how much *actual*
disk space is used by each row, so adding up that column will give you
the "Allocated" value in the first clause. I think that's probably the
biggest cause of confusion. "Raw alloc.", maybe, and use the term
"raw" somewhere in the first clause to hammer the point home.
I think that there is a little misunderstanding. We are saying the same
thing. Only I call "allocated" what you call "raw alloc"
My only concern here is that we're a bit too close to the existing
solution (albeit merging the two sets of output), which has proven
itself over time to be somewhat confusing. I think the Alloc_Raw
column is the minimum necessary to link the two in some easily
determinable way. Adding totals to Alloc_Raw, and Used (but not Free
or Alloc) would help, I think. I don't think it's useful to add them
to the Free or Alloc columns, because those figures change as the FS
allocates chunks, and we'll end up with people querying the fact that
the total of Free doesn't add up to any of the figures in the
summary.
Say, something like this:
Summary_(Raw):
Total: 135.00 GiB
Allocated: 10.51 GiB
Unallocated: 124.49 GiB
Free_(Estimated): 86.56 GiB
Average_disk_efficiency: 62 %
Details:
Chunk_type Mode Alloc_Raw Alloc Used Free
Data Single 4.01 GiB 4.01 GiB 2.16 GiB 1.87 GiB
System DUP 32.00 MiB 16.00 MiB 4.00 KiB 7.99 MiB
System Single 4.00 MiB 4.00 MiB 0.00 B 4.00 MiB
Metadata DUP 12.00 GiB 6.00 GiB 429.16 MiB 2.57 GiB
Metadata Single 8.00 MiB 8.00 MiB 0.00 B 8.00 MiB
Total 16.04 GiB 2.59 GiB
The other thing is that there should be a switch (or possibly two)
to give highly machine-readable versions of the output -- no units
(units as bytes by default, with other units settable by a switch),
tab-separated, possibly a different option for each of the above
output clauses.
I fully Agree. But my first concern was about the wording (if fact even
though we are saying the same thing you didn't understood me).
Let me propose the following:
Summary:
Disk_size: 135.00 GiB
Disk_allocated: 10.51 GiB
Disk_unallocated: 124.49 GiB
Used: 2.59 GiB
Free_(Estimated): 91.93 GiB
Average_disk_efficiency: 70 %
Details:
Chunk-type Mode Disk-allocated Used Available
Data Single 4.01GB 2.16GB 1.87GB
System DUP 16.00MB 4.00KB 7.99MB
System Single 4.00MB 0.00 4.00MB
Metadata DUP 6.00GB 429.16MB 2.57GB
Metadata Single 8.00MB 0.00 8.00MB
Where:
Disk-allocated -> space used on the disk by the chunk
Disk-size -> size of the disk
Disk-unallocated -> disk not used in any chunk
Used -> space used by the files/metadata
Available -> space available in the *allocated* chunk
Free_(Estimated) -> Theoretical free space for files (Disk_size
* Average_disk_efficiency - Used)
Ultimately, I think the bikeshed should be turquoise.
? :-)
Hugo.
Ciao
Goffredo
--
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
