Hi all,
I updates my previous patches [1] to add support for raid5/6.
These patches update the btrfs fi df command and add two new commands:
- btrfs filesystem disk-usage
- btrfs device disk-usage
The command "btrfs filesystem df" now shows only the disk usage/available.
$ sudo btrfs filesyst
> do you have more information about raid ? When it will land on the btrfs
> earth ? :-)
An unnamed source recently said "today I'm fixing parity rebuild in
the middle of a read/modify/write. its one of my last blockers", at
which point several gags about progress meters were made.
--
To unsubscri
On 11/02/2012 11:06 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> non-integer with the RAID-5/6 code (which is due Real Soon Now).
Hi Hugo,
do you have more information about raid ? When it will land on the btrfs
earth ? :-)
--
gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it>
Key fingerprint BBF5 16
On 11/03/2012 12:44 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> 1 MiB stored in RAID-5 across 3 devices takes up 1.5 MiB -- multiplier ×1.5
>(1 MiB over 2 devices is 512 KiB, plus an additional 512 KiB for parity)
> 1 MiB stored in RAID-5 across 6 devices takes up 1.2 MiB -- multipler ×1.2
>(1 MiB over 5 devic
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:
[...]
>> We could use "Chunk(s) capacity" instead of total/size ? I would like an
>> opinion from a "english people" point of view..
>
> This is
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 23:44:19 +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 11:23:14PM +, Gabriel wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 22:06:04 +, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> >I've not considered the full semantics of all this yet -- I'll try
>> > to do that tomorrow. However, I note that the "×2
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 11:23:14PM +, Gabriel wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 22:06:04 +, Hugo Mills wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 07:05:37PM +, Gabriel wrote:
> >> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:02:32 +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> >> > On 2012-11-02 12:18, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 21:46:35 +, Michael Kjörling wrote:
> On 2 Nov 2012 20:40 +, from g2p.c...@gmail.com (Gabriel):
>> Now that I've started bikeshedding, here is something that I would
>> find pretty much ideal:
>>
>> DataMetadata System Unallocated
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 22:06:04 +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 07:05:37PM +, 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
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 07:05:37PM +, 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,
On 2 Nov 2012 20:40 +, from g2p.c...@gmail.com (Gabriel):
> Now that I've started bikeshedding, here is something that I would
> find pretty much ideal:
>
> DataMetadata System Unallocated
>
>
> VolGroup/Btrfs
> Reserved 1.31TB 8.00MB +
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
1,7
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
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:
On 2012-11-02 12:18, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> I can test on some other boxes next week, if you want to.
Yes please,
>
> I just wonder about one thing:
>
>
> merkaba:[…]/btrfs-progs-unstable> ./btrfs fi df /
> Disk size:18.62GB
> Disk allocated: 18.62GB
> Disk unall
Am Freitag, 2. November 2012 schrieb Goffredo Baroncelli:
> Hi all, on the basis of the discussion in the thread
> '[RFC] New attempt to a better "btrfs fi df"', I prepared the following
> set of patches.
> These patches update the btrfs fi df command and add two new commands:
> - btrfs filesystem
Hi all, on the basis of the discussion in the thread
'[RFC] New attempt to a better "btrfs fi df"', I prepared the following
set of patches.
These patches update the btrfs fi df command and add two new commands:
- btrfs filesystem disk-usage
- btrfs device disk-usage
The command "btrfs filesyst
17 matches
Mail list logo
