On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 10:01:00PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > On 10/03/2012 07:46 PM, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:46:00PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > >>On 10/03/2012 05:01 PM, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > >>>"Type" for the first column is probably enough. > >>> > >>>Why is the third column called Chunk-size? If my understanding is > >>>correct, it's just a break down of Disk_allocated from the summary > >>>section. If so, why not call it Disk_allocated to avoid confusion? > >> > >>Using everywhere Disk_<something> was my first attempt. But after > >>some thoughts I decided that these are two different kind of > >>information. It is true that Disk_allocated is the sum of > >>Chunk-Sizes... But my feels is that this is a kind of > >>"implementation details". If some other type of allocation unit will > >>be added to BTRFS, then these will be added to Disk_allocated, but > >>not to Chunk list... > >>I prefer to not change the wording until an enough critical mass of > >>people converge to a unique solution . > > > >It is the chunks that is the implementation detail that we want to hide. > >Average Btrfs user wouldn't want to know anything about chunks, the only > >thing he'd be interested in is Disk_allocated and similar fields. > > The "df" standard tool id sufficient for the "average user". > We need only to export these information via the standard syscall > stat[v]fs. Basically we should try to implement the algorithm of the > Free_(Estimated) space for the statfs(2) syscall. > Who uses btrfs tools, is an user with knowledge of btrfs higher than > the average. > > >Moreover, I am pretty sure "Chunk-Size" would actually confuse people. > >I stared at your example output for a few seconds trying to comprehend a > >21GB Chunk-Size on a 72GB partition. What you call "Chunk-Size" is > >actually a sum of sizes of chunks of that particular type, and a few > >lines above you call the same exact sum (only this time over all types > >of chunks) "Disk_allocated". So I think it's only logical to rename the > >column in question to "Disk_allocated" to match the summary section. > > What about > [...] > Details: > Chunk_type Mode Size_(disk) Size_(logical) Used > Data Single 21.01GB 21.01GB 10.53GB > System DUP 80.00MB 40.00MB 4.00KB > [...] > > ? This is definitely better. Can you also drop "Chunk_type" in favor of "Type"? Thanks, Ilya -- 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
