On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 01:06:38PM +1100, Wes wrote:
> > I don't know much of what goes on inside BtrFS, but I like to point
> > out that btrfs fi df doesn't actually report total space on the disk,
> > only the total space currently allocated.
>
>
> Good point, and this also supports the notion
> I don't know much of what goes on inside BtrFS, but I like to point
> out that btrfs fi df doesn't actually report total space on the disk,
> only the total space currently allocated.
Good point, and this also supports the notion that it's more of a 'du'
work-alike than a 'df' one
--
To unsubsc
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Wes wrote:
> Just wondering,
>
> Why is this command called 'df' when it reports total space and used
> space but not free space? Wouldn't this be more aptly named 'btrfs
> filesystem du' ?
> It's been my understanding that traditionally 'df' has been to display
Just wondering,
Why is this command called 'df' when it reports total space and used
space but not free space? Wouldn't this be more aptly named 'btrfs
filesystem du' ?
It's been my understanding that traditionally 'df' has been to display
free space remaining (as well as total available and use
