On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:31:56 +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > On 11/02/2012 08:05 PM, Gabriel wrote: >> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:02:32 +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: >>> On 2012-11-02 12:18, Martin Steigerwald wrote: >>>> Metadata, DUP is displayed as 3,50GB on the device level and as >>>> 1,75GB in total. I understand the logic behind this, but this could >>>> be a bit confusing. >>>> >>>> But it makes sense: Showing real allocation on device level makes >>>> sense, >>>> cause thats what really allocated on disk. Total makes some sense, >>>> cause thats what is being used from the tree by BTRFS. >>> >>> Yes, me too. At the first I was confused when you noticed this >>> discrepancy. So I have to admit that it is not so obvious to >>> understand. >>> However we didn't find any way to make it more clear... >>> >>>> It still looks confusing at first… >>> We could use "Chunk(s) capacity" instead of total/size ? I would like >>> an opinion from a "english people" point of view.. >> >> This is easy to fix, here's a mockup: >> >> Metadata,DUP: Size: 1.75GB ×2, Used: 627.84MB ×2 >> /dev/dm-0 3.50GB >> >> Data Metadata Metadata System System Single Single >> DUP Single DUP Unallocated >> >> /dev/dm-16 1.31TB 8.00MB 56.00GB 4.00MB 16.00MB 0.00 >> ====== ======== =========== ====== =========== =========== >> Total 1.31TB 8.00MB 28.00GB ×2 4.00MB 8.00MB ×2 0.00 >> Used 1.31TB 0.00 5.65GB ×2 0.00 152.00KB ×2 > > Nice idea. Even tough I like the opposite: > > > Data Metadata Metadata System System Single Single DUP > Single DUP Unallocated > > /dev/dm-16 1.31TB 8.00MB 28.00GB x2 4.00MB 8.00MB x2 0.00 > ====== ======== =========== ====== =========== =========== > Total 1.31TB 8.00MB 28.00GB 4.00MB 8.00MB 0.00 > Used 1.31TB 0.00 5.65GB 0.00 152.00KB > > > However how your solution will became when RAID5/RAID6 will arrive ? mmm > may be the solution is simpler: the "x2" factor is applied only to DUP > profile. The other profiles span different disks.
That problem solved itself :) > As another option, we can add a field/line which reports the RAID > factor: > > Metadata,DUP: Size: 1.75GB, Used: 627.84MB, Raid factor: 2x > /dev/dm-0 3.50GB > > > Data Metadata Metadata System System Single Single DUP > Single DUP Unallocated > > /dev/dm-16 1.31TB 8.00MB 56.00GB 4.00MB 16.00MB 0.00 > ====== ======== ======== ====== ======== =========== > Raid factor - - x2 - x2 - > Total 1.31TB 8.00MB 28.00GB 4.00MB 8.00MB 0.00 Used > 1.31TB 0.00 5.65GB 0.00 152.00KB All fine options. Though if you remove the ×2 on the totals line, you should compute it instead (it looks like a tally, both sides of the == line should be equal). Now that I've started bikeshedding, here is something that I would find pretty much ideal: Data Metadata System Unallocated VolGroup/Btrfs Reserved 1.31TB 8.00MB + 2×28.00MB 16.00MB + 2×4.00MB - Used 1.31TB 2× 5.65GB 2×152.00KB - ======= ================== ================== =========== Total Reserved 1.31TB 56.00GB 24.00MB - Used 1.31TB 11.30GB 304.00KB - Free 12.34GB 44.70GB 23.70MB - >> Also, I don't know if you could use libblkid, but it finds more >> descriptive names than dm-NN (thanks to some smart sorting logic). > > I don't think that it would be impossible to use libblkid, however > it would be difficult to find spaces for longer device name I suggest cutting out the /dev and putting a line break after the name. The extra info makes it more human-friendly, and the line break may complicate machine parsing but the non-tabular format is better at that anyway. -- 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