On 2020-07-21 21:48, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 7/21/20 12:15 PM, Steven Davies wrote:
On 2020-07-20 18:57, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 7/18/20 12:36 PM, Steven Davies wrote:
/dev/sdf, ID: 12
Device size: 9.10TiB
Device slack: 0.00B
Data,RAID10: 784.31GiB
Data,RAID10: 4.01TiB
Data,RAID10: 3.34TiB
Data,RAID6: 458.56GiB
Data,RAID6: 144.07GiB
Data,RAID6: 293.03GiB
Metadata,RAID10: 4.47GiB
Metadata,RAID10: 352.00MiB
Metadata,RAID10: 6.00GiB
Metadata,RAID1C3: 5.00GiB
System,RAID1C3: 32.00MiB
Unallocated: 85.79GiB
[...]
RFE: improve 'dev usage' to show these details.
As a user I'd look at this output and assume a bug in btrfs-tools
because of the repeated conflicting information.
What would be the expected output ?
What about the example below ?
/dev/sdf, ID: 12
Device size: 9.10TiB
Device slack: 0.00B
Data,RAID10: 784.31GiB
Data,RAID10: 4.01TiB
Data,RAID10: 3.34TiB
Data,RAID6[3]: 458.56GiB
Data,RAID6[5]: 144.07GiB
Data,RAID6[7]: 293.03GiB
Metadata,RAID10: 4.47GiB
Metadata,RAID10: 352.00MiB
Metadata,RAID10: 6.00GiB
Metadata,RAID1C3: 5.00GiB
System,RAID1C3: 32.00MiB
Unallocated: 85.79GiB
That works for me for RAID6. There are three lines for RAID10 too -
what's the difference between these?
The differences is the number of the disks involved. In raid10, the
first 64K are on the first disk, the 2nd 64K are in the 2nd disk and
so until the last disk. Then the n+1 th 64K are again in the first
disk... and so on.. (ok I missed the RAID1 part, but I think the have
giving the idea )
So the chunk layout depends by the involved number of disk, even if
the differences is not so dramatic.
Is this information that the user/sysadmin needs to be aware of in a
similar manner to the original problem that started this thread? If not
I'd be tempted to sum all the RAID10 chunks into one line (each for data
and metadata).
Data,RAID6: 123.45GiB
/dev/sda 12.34GiB
/dev/sdb 12.34GiB
/dev/sdc 12.34GiB
Data,RAID6: 123.45GiB
/dev/sdb 12.34GiB
/dev/sdc 12.34GiB
/dev/sdd 12.34GiB
/dev/sde 12.34GiB
/dev/sdf 12.34GiB
Here there would need to be something which shows what the difference
in the RAID6 blocks is - if it's the chunk size then I'd do the same
as the above example with e.g. Data,RAID6[3].
We could add a '[n]' for the profile where it matters, e.g. raid0,
raid10, raid5, raid6.
What do you think ?
So like this? That would make sense to me, as long as the meaning of [n]
is explained in --help or the manpage.
Data,RAID6[3]: 123.45GiB
/dev/sda 12.34GiB
/dev/sdb 12.34GiB
/dev/sdc 12.34GiB
Data,RAID6[5]: 123.45GiB
/dev/sdb 12.34GiB
/dev/sdc 12.34GiB
/dev/sdd 12.34GiB
/dev/sde 12.34GiB
/dev/sdf 12.34GiB
--
Steven Davies
