> noticing from above > > >> ... size 931.51GB used 2.03GB ... > > 'used' more than the 'size'? > > more confused ... For me, it looks as if 2.03GB is way smaller than 931.51GB (2 << 931), no? Everything seems to be fine here. And regarding your original mail: it seems that df is still lying about the size of the btrfs fs, check http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg00758.html-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
