On 28 Oct 2012 14:19 -0600, from li...@colorremedies.com (Chris Murphy):
Somehow for large storage I like the idea of time to full. GB and
TB of storage is not really what we care about, it just seems that
way because it's what we're used to. (Not to imply that we don't
care about GB and TB at
On 10/28/2012 03:06 PM, Michael Kjörling wrote:
You_can_ calculate a worst case
scenario figure (no compression possible on the new payload data), but
that's about it.
Well, there are those humorous edge cases where you compress a tiny
amount of uncompressible data, and the compressed
On Oct 29, 2012, at 3:04 AM, Michael Kjörling mich...@kjorling.se wrote:
There are two fairly big issues however that I can see having thought
a little about this that will need careful consideration before
deciding to go with a time to full scheme.
First, what if disk usage is actually
On 2012-10-28 00:38, Hugo Mills wrote:
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:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-10-25 21:21, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
Hi all,
this is a new attempt to improve the output of the command btrfs
fi df.
Below you can see another iteration. I tried to address all the cwillu
requests, which to me make sense.
I thought a
Am Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2012 schrieb Goffredo Baroncelli:
On 2012-10-25 21:21, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
Hi all,
this is a new attempt to improve the output of the command btrfs
fi df.
Below you can see another iteration. I tried to address all the cwillu
requests, which to me make
Am Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2012 schrieb Goffredo Baroncelli:
On 2012-10-28 00:38, Hugo Mills wrote:
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
On 2012-10-28 11:33, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2012 schrieb Goffredo Baroncelli:
[...]
$ sudo ./btrfs fi df /mnt/btrfs1/
Path: /mnt/btrfs1
Summary:
Disk_size: 21.00GB
Disk_allocated: 1.83GB
Disk_unallocated:19.17GB
Used:
Michael, please keep CCs. Its usual to keep them on kernel related lists.
Thanks.
Am Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2012 schrieb Michael Kjörling:
On 27 Oct 2012 23:38 +0100, from h...@carfax.org.uk (Hugo Mills):
Data: RAID 0 System: RAID 1 Unused
/dev/vdb 307.25 MB
On 2012-10-28 11:38, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2012 schrieb Goffredo Baroncelli:
On 2012-10-28 00:38, Hugo Mills wrote:
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
Am Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2012 schrieb Goffredo Baroncelli:
What was your reasoning for not using options to btrfs filesystem df?
That df doesn´t show more than disk free as well?
My feel is that a switch should change a bit a command. In this case
there are very different outputs, for
On 28 Oct 2012 11:59 +0100, from kreij...@gmail.com (Goffredo Baroncelli):
On 2012-10-28 11:38, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
But still if if can be arbitrarily long due to that per object replication
config, a vertical output might and leaving graphical representation to a
Qt Quick application
On 27 Oct 2012 17:35 -0600, from li...@colorremedies.com (Chris Murphy):
On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Michael Kjörling mich...@kjorling.se wrote:
Data: RAID 0 System: RAID 1 Unused
/dev/vdb 307.25 MB-2.23 GB
/dev/vdc 307.25 MB 8 MB
On 2012-10-28 12:18, Michael Kjörling wrote:
On 28 Oct 2012 11:59 +0100, from kreij...@gmail.com (Goffredo Baroncelli):
On 2012-10-28 11:38, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
But still if if can be arbitrarily long due to that per object replication
config, a vertical output might and leaving
On 28 Oct 2012 13:25 +0100, from kreij...@inwind.it (Goffredo Baroncelli):
On 2012-10-28 12:18, Michael Kjörling wrote:
I would personally really prefer a tabular view that perhaps does not
show _all_ details when no explicit parameters are given, and a
--dump or similar that will give a
Am Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2012 schrieb Goffredo Baroncelli:
On 2012-10-28 12:18, Michael Kjörling wrote:
On 28 Oct 2012 11:59 +0100, from kreij...@gmail.com (Goffredo
Baroncelli):
On 2012-10-28 11:38, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
But still if if can be arbitrarily long due to that per object
On Oct 28, 2012, at 5:16 AM, Martin Steigerwald mar...@lichtvoll.de wrote:
The question whether how these are all related to the question on how much
space is free?
This is my main confusion with 'filesystem df' is that it's very circumspect
about this. For a way longer time than I think is
On 28 Oct 2012 12:27 -0600, from li...@colorremedies.com (Chris Murphy):
I think we're all trained to see file size as absolute, even when
the file is in effect duplicated. I think it's possible we need to
be retrained to look at this from a storage point of view. The
storage pool is 200GB in
On Oct 28, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Michael Kjörling mich...@kjorling.se wrote:
This makes a valid point. And there's another issue potentially at
play: file system level compression, _which btrfs already supports_.
Say you store a highly compressible file (a web server access log,
perhaps) on a
On Oct 28, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Michael Kjörling mich...@kjorling.se wrote:
This makes a valid point. And there's another issue potentially at
play: file system level compression, _which btrfs already supports_.
Say you store a highly compressible file (a web server access log,
perhaps) on a
On 28 Oct 2012 13:42 -0600, from ch...@colorremedies.com (Chris Murphy):
* btrfs _is_ the file system administration tool. In a way, it makes
sense that the data provided by it will be geared more toward
technically minded people.
It is a fair point. But this is not LVM or md raid. It's
On Oct 28, 2012, at 2:09 PM, Michael Kjörling mich...@kjorling.se wrote:
I did not mean to imply that sysadmins and storage experts aren't
also ordinary people who can benefit from an at a glance view of
their storage situation. Quite to the contrary, that's one point I
have raised in this
On Oct 25, 2012, at 9:36 PM, cwillu cwi...@cwillu.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
So what's the intended distinction between 'fi df' and 'fi show'? Because
for months using btrfs I'd constantly be confused which command was going to
Am Donnerstag, 25. Oktober 2012 schrieb Goffredo Baroncelli:
Hi all,
this is a new attempt to improve the output of the command btrfs fi
df.
The previous attempt received a good reception. However there was no a
general consensus about the wording.
Moreover I still didn't understand
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 0 307,25MB307,25MB307,25MB
…
System,RAID1 - 8MB 8MB
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 0 307,25MB307,25MB
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
On 27 Oct 2012 23:38 +0100, from h...@carfax.org.uk (Hugo Mills):
Data: RAID 0 System: RAID 1 Unused
/dev/vdb 307.25 MB-2.23 GB
/dev/vdc 307.25 MB 8 MB2.69 GB
/dev/vdd 307.25 MB 8 MB2.24 GB
On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Michael Kjörling mich...@kjorling.se wrote:
Data: RAID 0 System: RAID 1 Unused
/dev/vdb 307.25 MB-2.23 GB
/dev/vdc 307.25 MB 8 MB2.69 GB
/dev/vdd 307.25 MB 8 MB2.24 GB
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
this is a new attempt to improve the output of the command btrfs fi df.
The previous attempt received a good reception. However there was no a
general consensus about the wording.
Moreover I still didn't understand how btrfs was using the
I don't publish the patched because aren't in a good shape. However I
really like the output. The example is a filesystem based on three
disks of 3GB.
It is clear that:
- - RAID0 uses all the disks
- - RAID1 uses two different disks
Comments are welcome.
Known bugs:
- - if a filesystem
On 2012-10-25 21:40, cwillu wrote:
I don't publish the patched because aren't in a good shape. However I
really like the output. The example is a filesystem based on three
disks of 3GB.
It is clear that:
- - RAID0 uses all the disks
- - RAID1 uses two different disks
Comments are welcome.
On Oct 25, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@inwind.it wrote:
Moreover I still didn't understand how btrfs was using the disks.
This comment has less to do with the RFC, and more about user confusion in a
specific case of the existing fi df behavior. But since I have the same
Allocated_area:
Data,RAID0: Size:921.75MB, Used:256.00KB
/dev/vdc 307.25MB
/dev/vdb 307.25MB
/dev/vdd 307.25MB
Data,Single: Size:8.00MB, Used:0.00
/dev/vdb 8.00MB
System,RAID1: Size:8.00MB, Used:4.00KB
/dev/vdd 8.00MB
/dev/vdc
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@inwind.it wrote:
Moreover I still didn't understand how btrfs was using the disks.
This comment has less to do with the RFC, and more about user confusion in
My suggestion is that by default a summary similar to the existing df command
be mimicked, where it makes sense, for btrfs fi df.
- I like the Capacity %. If there is a reliable equivalent, it need not be
inode based, that would be great.
- I care far less about the actual physical device
On 2012-10-25 22:11, cwillu wrote:
3. How does Data: total=72GB before rebalance, but is 5GB after
rebalance? This was a brand new file system, file system
installed, with maybe 2-3 updates, and a dozen or two reboots.
That's it. No VM's created on that volume (it's a VDI itself),
and the VDI
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
My suggestion is that by default a summary similar to the existing df command
be mimicked, where it makes sense, for btrfs fi df.
- I like the Capacity %. If there is a reliable equivalent, it need not be
inode
On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:11 PM, cwillu cwi...@cwillu.com wrote:
1. Why is FS bytes used = 3.91GB, yet devid 1 used is 9.13 GB?
FS bytes is what du -sh would show. devid 1 used is space
allocated to some block group (without that block group itself being
entirely used)
I agree the word used
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
So what's the intended distinction between 'fi df' and 'fi show'? Because for
months using btrfs I'd constantly be confused which command was going to show
me what information I wanted, and that tells me there should
On Oct 25, 2012, at 9:36 PM, cwillu cwi...@cwillu.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
So what's the intended distinction between 'fi df' and 'fi show'? Because
for months using btrfs I'd constantly be confused which command was going to
41 matches
Mail list logo
