btrfs df confusion
Hi I've made some updates on the wiki and I'd like a technical review for correctness. This particular topic is already confusing - some unnecessary sarcasm made it even more so: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Why_does_df_show_incorrect_free_space_for_my_RAID_volume.3F Due to the terms used and allocated in the wiki, viric in #btrfs made the good suggestion that we could adjust the show and df output with more intuitive language: Before I git a patch together, please let me know if there are any good reasons why we wouldn't want to make such a change. (13:31:29) viric: zatricky: devid ... used are allocated data, while FS bytes used is the sum of used bytes, isn't it? (13:33:28) zatricky: viric: correct (13:33:52) viric: zatricky: maybe the devid lines could be changed s/used/allocated/ (13:34:37) zatricky: viric: that's a good idea - would make it more intuitive (13:35:29) viric: the same way, 'btrfs fi df' could change s/total/allocated ^ GMT+2 ;) Thanks -- __ Brendan Hide Mobile: +27 83 448 3867 Web Africa - Internet Business Solutions http://www.webafrica.co.za/?AFF1E97 -- 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
Re: btrfs df confusion
On 12/27/2012 12:59 PM, Brendan Hide wrote: Hi Hi, I've made some updates on the wiki and I'd like a technical review for correctness. This particular topic is already confusing - some unnecessary sarcasm made it even more so: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Why_does_df_show_incorrect_free_space_for_my_RAID_volume.3F I posted some patches in order to address this issue. However these aren't integrated (yet). At the end I think that I reached a general consensus about the wording. A general description is here [1]. The patch related to man page is here [2], which can help about the wording. I hope that it will help your work. BR G.Baroncelli Due to the terms used and allocated in the wiki, viric in #btrfs made the good suggestion that we could adjust the show and df output with more intuitive language: Before I git a patch together, please let me know if there are any good reasons why we wouldn't want to make such a change. (13:31:29) viric: zatricky: devid ... used are allocated data, while FS bytes used is the sum of used bytes, isn't it? (13:33:28) zatricky: viric: correct (13:33:52) viric: zatricky: maybe the devid lines could be changed s/used/allocated/ (13:34:37) zatricky: viric: that's a good idea - would make it more intuitive (13:35:29) viric: the same way, 'btrfs fi df' could change s/total/allocated ^ GMT+2 ;) Thanks [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/21071 [2] http://markmail.org/thread/nol2gcjky4cxndhv#query:+page:1+mid:xqnyqp7slb7rrach+state:results -- gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5 -- 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
Re: btrfs df confusion
Thanks, duplicate effort averted :) On 2012/12/27 07:04 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: On 12/27/2012 12:59 PM, Brendan Hide wrote: Hi Hi, I've made some updates on the wiki and I'd like a technical review for correctness. This particular topic is already confusing - some unnecessary sarcasm made it even more so: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Why_does_df_show_incorrect_free_space_for_my_RAID_volume.3F I posted some patches in order to address this issue. However these aren't integrated (yet). At the end I think that I reached a general consensus about the wording. A general description is here [1]. The patch related to man page is here [2], which can help about the wording. I hope that it will help your work. BR G.Baroncelli Due to the terms used and allocated in the wiki, viric in #btrfs made the good suggestion that we could adjust the show and df output with more intuitive language: Before I git a patch together, please let me know if there are any good reasons why we wouldn't want to make such a change. (13:31:29) viric: zatricky: devid ... used are allocated data, while FS bytes used is the sum of used bytes, isn't it? (13:33:28) zatricky: viric: correct (13:33:52) viric: zatricky: maybe the devid lines could be changed s/used/allocated/ (13:34:37) zatricky: viric: that's a good idea - would make it more intuitive (13:35:29) viric: the same way, 'btrfs fi df' could change s/total/allocated ^ GMT+2 ;) Thanks [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/21071 [2] http://markmail.org/thread/nol2gcjky4cxndhv#query:+page:1+mid:xqnyqp7slb7rrach+state:results -- Brendan Hide 083 448 3867 http://swiftspirit.co.za/ -- 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
