On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:30:44AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Samstag, 27. Oktober 2012 schrieb Michael Kjörling:
> > On 27 Oct 2012 18:43 +0200, from mar...@lichtvoll.de (Martin
> Steigerwald):
> > > Possibly this could be done tabular as well, like:
> > >
> > > vdb vdc vdd
> > >
> > > Data, RAID 0 307,25MB 307,25MB 307,25MB
> > > …
> > > System,RAID1 - 8MB 8MB
> > > …
> > > Unused 2,23GB 2,69GB 2,24GB
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I like this. But what if the filesystem has 100 disks?
> >
> > Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with btrfs yet to punch an
> > immediate hole in the idea, but how about pivoting that table? Columns
> > for data values ("data, raid 0", "system, raid 1", "unused", ...) and
> > rows for the underlying devices? Something like this, copying the
> > numbers from your example. And I'm using colon here rather than comma,
> > because I believe that it better captures the intent.
> >
> > Data: RAID 0 System: RAID 1 Unused
> > /dev/vdb 307.25 MB - 2.23 GB
> > /dev/vdc 307.25 MB 8 MB 2.69 GB
> > /dev/vdd 307.25 MB 8 MB 2.24 GB
> > ============ ============== ============
> > TOTAL 921.75 MB 16 MB 7.16 GB
>
> Hmmm, good idea. I like it this way around.
>
> It would scale better with the number of drives and there is a good way to
> place the totals.
>
> I wonder about how to possibly include the used part of each tree. With
> mostly 5 columns it might be doable.Note that this could get arbitrarily wide in the presence of the (planned) per-object replication config. Otherwise, it works. The width is probably likely to grow more slowly than the length, though, so this way round is probably the better option. IMO. Eggshell blue is good enough. :) Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Some days, it's just not worth gnawing through the straps. ---
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
