On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:31:56 +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 08:05 PM, Gabriel wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:02:32 +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>>> On 2012-11-02 12:18, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>>>> Metadata, DUP is displayed as 3,50GB on the device level and as
>>>> 1,75GB in total. I understand the logic behind this, but this could
>>>> be a bit confusing.
>>>>
>>>> But it makes sense: Showing real allocation on device level makes
>>>> sense,
>>>> cause thats what really allocated on disk. Total makes some sense,
>>>> cause thats what is being used from the tree by BTRFS.
>>>
>>> Yes, me too. At the first I was confused when you noticed this
>>> discrepancy. So I have to admit that it is not so obvious to
>>> understand.
>>> However we didn't find any way to make it more clear...
>>>
>>>> It still looks confusing at first…
>>> We could use "Chunk(s) capacity" instead of total/size ? I would like
>>> an opinion from a "english people" point of view..
>>
>> This is easy to fix, here's a mockup:
>>
>> Metadata,DUP: Size: 1.75GB ×2, Used: 627.84MB ×2
>> /dev/dm-0 3.50GB
>>
>> Data Metadata Metadata System System Single Single
>> DUP Single DUP Unallocated
>>
>> /dev/dm-16 1.31TB 8.00MB 56.00GB 4.00MB 16.00MB 0.00
>> ====== ======== =========== ====== =========== ===========
>> Total 1.31TB 8.00MB 28.00GB ×2 4.00MB 8.00MB ×2 0.00
>> Used 1.31TB 0.00 5.65GB ×2 0.00 152.00KB ×2
>
> Nice idea. Even tough I like the opposite:
>
>
> Data Metadata Metadata System System Single Single DUP
> Single DUP Unallocated
>
> /dev/dm-16 1.31TB 8.00MB 28.00GB x2 4.00MB 8.00MB x2 0.00
> ====== ======== =========== ====== =========== ===========
> Total 1.31TB 8.00MB 28.00GB 4.00MB 8.00MB 0.00
> Used 1.31TB 0.00 5.65GB 0.00 152.00KB
>
>
> However how your solution will became when RAID5/RAID6 will arrive ? mmm
> may be the solution is simpler: the "x2" factor is applied only to DUP
> profile. The other profiles span different disks.
That problem solved itself :)
> As another option, we can add a field/line which reports the RAID
> factor:
>
> Metadata,DUP: Size: 1.75GB, Used: 627.84MB, Raid factor: 2x
> /dev/dm-0 3.50GB
>
>
> Data Metadata Metadata System System Single Single DUP
> Single DUP Unallocated
>
> /dev/dm-16 1.31TB 8.00MB 56.00GB 4.00MB 16.00MB 0.00
> ====== ======== ======== ====== ======== ===========
> Raid factor - - x2 - x2 -
> Total 1.31TB 8.00MB 28.00GB 4.00MB 8.00MB 0.00 Used
> 1.31TB 0.00 5.65GB 0.00 152.00KB
All fine options. Though if you remove the ×2 on the totals line,
you should compute it instead (it looks like a tally, both sides
of the == line should be equal).
Now that I've started bikeshedding, here is something that I would
find pretty much ideal:
Data Metadata System Unallocated
VolGroup/Btrfs
Reserved 1.31TB 8.00MB + 2×28.00MB 16.00MB + 2×4.00MB -
Used 1.31TB 2× 5.65GB 2×152.00KB -
======= ================== ================== ===========
Total
Reserved 1.31TB 56.00GB 24.00MB -
Used 1.31TB 11.30GB 304.00KB -
Free 12.34GB 44.70GB 23.70MB -
>> Also, I don't know if you could use libblkid, but it finds more
>> descriptive names than dm-NN (thanks to some smart sorting logic).
>
> I don't think that it would be impossible to use libblkid, however
> it would be difficult to find spaces for longer device name
I suggest cutting out the /dev and putting a line break after the
name. The extra info makes it more human-friendly, and the line
break may complicate machine parsing but the non-tabular format is
better at that anyway.
--
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
