On 2012-10-28 11:33, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2012 schrieb Goffredo Baroncelli: [...] >> $ sudo ./btrfs fi df /mnt/btrfs1/ >> Path: /mnt/btrfs1 >> Summary: >> Disk_size: 21.00GB >> Disk_allocated: 1.83GB >> Disk_unallocated: 19.17GB >> Used: 284.00KB >> Free_(Estimated): 15.76GB (Max: 20.54GB, min: 10.96GB) >> Data_to_disk_ratio: 75 % > > Okay, so that btrfs fi df. > > Which is a summary. > > I think much more wouldn´t be a summary anymore, so thats okay. > > > And the following > >> Allocated_area: >> Data,Single: Size:8.00MB, Used:0.00 >> /dev/vdb 8.00MB >> >> Data,RAID0: Size:921.75MB, Used:256.00KB >> /dev/vdb 307.25MB [...] > > is detail shown by btrfs filesystem disk-usage? Yes > > While > >> Disks: >> /dev/vdb 3.00GB >> Data,Single: 8.00MB >> Data,RAID0: 307.25MB >> Metadata,Single: 8.00MB >> Metadata,RAID1: 460.94MB [...] > > will be btrfs device disk-usage? yes > > What was your reasoning for not using options to btrfs filesystem df? That > df doesn´t show more than "disk free" as well? My feel is that a switch should change "a bit" a command. In this case there are very different outputs, for different purposes (how is used a disk ? where are the chunks ? how many free space I have ? ). > > Then there is a little "inconsistency": "df" versus "disk-usage". I would > use either "disk-free" and "disk-usage" or "df" and "du". While regular > "du" is not disk-usage but a filesystem directory tree usage command. > > I will think about this a bit more. > > Thanks, -- 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
