On 09/28/2012 08:02 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:44:07 +0200
Goffredo Baroncelli<kreijack@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This means that the ration of space physically allocated on the disk and
the space available is 7GB/10GB = 0.7 . So on 135GB of disk, only 94GB
are available.
You assume metadata allocation will always grow linearly with data, which is
not true. So in my opinion it is not a good estimate.
I am open to accept suggestion on how improve the algorithm. Today we
have only ... nothing. If I elaborate the output of btrfs fi show I can
estimate the best-case (i.e. the data have no further redundancy); my
algorithm is a bit smarter. However I repeat: please suggest us a better
algorithm.
Regarding the assumption about the ratio data/metadata is constant, yes
I assumed that. Why this should change ? Of course could change, but
which would be a better estimation ?
My algorithm is not perfect, but better than nothing.
Are you ready to answer the flood of questions from people why their disk is
only 62% efficient, and how to tune it to 100%? :-)
I don't understand your question
You mentioned that the aim was to make the output more friendly, i.e. to make
it less confusing. But I find this percentage and the way it is labeled likely
to achieve the opposite effect, causing a lot of new questions on what does
this mean (while the percentage reported is likely not even being correct),
how to improve it, etc.
These questions already are there, because the free space estimation in
BTRFS is
a) very complex
b) "btrfs fi df" and "btrfs fi show" don't help to measure ( nor
estimate) the space available.
Because on BTRFS the metadata are a lot
Keep in mind that there is also inlining; so even if the space is allocated
for metadata, it will be used to store small files. So it might be not
completely fair to count the metadata allocated space as unusable space.
I never told that the metadata space is unusable space. Is true the
opposite: I don't differentiate data/metadata/system.... I only consider
the RAID/DUP/Single in terms of disk-space/available-space.
Why use underscores instead of spaces?
Simplify the parsing in scripts
I think it looks awkward and is not warranted since this is a primarily
user-facing utility. Also none of the other similar tools shy from having
spaces anywhere they need to, e.g.
We could improve on this side. However these utilities are often used in
scripts
# mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
Version : 1.2
Creation Time : Wed May 25 00:07:38 2011
Raid Level : raid5
Array Size : 3907003136 (3726.01 GiB 4000.77 GB)
Used Dev Size : 976750784 (931.50 GiB 1000.19 GB)
Raid Devices : 5
Total Devices : 5
Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Intent Bitmap : Internal
Update Time : Fri Sep 28 21:20:51 2012
State : active
Active Devices : 5
Working Devices : 5
Failed Devices : 0
Spare Devices : 0
Layout : left-symmetric
Chunk Size : 64K
Name : avdeb:0 (local to host avdeb)
UUID : b99961fb:ed1f76c8:ec2dad31:6db45332
Events : 14254
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
7 8 17 0 active sync /dev/sdb1
6 8 33 1 active sync /dev/sdc1
3 8 65 2 active sync /dev/sde1
4 8 49 3 active sync /dev/sdd1
5 8 81 4 active sync /dev/sdf1
# lvdisplay
--- Logical volume ---
LV Path /dev/alpha/lv1
LV Name lv1
VG Name alpha
LV UUID HP19fU-oMhM-sdqN-yFWa-N3Rs-ktBw-21GSD2
LV Write Access read/write
LV Creation host, time ,
LV Status available
# open 0
LV Size 3.52 TiB
Current LE 115431
Segments 3
Allocation inherit
Read ahead sectors auto
- currently set to 4096
Block device 252:0
--
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
