On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 07:27:57PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> On 02/14/2014 07:11 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:57:03 +0100
> > Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/13/2014 10:00 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:49:08 +0100
> >>> Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks for the comments, however I don't like du not usage; but you are right
> >>>> when you don't like "disk-usage". What about "btrfs filesystem chunk-usage" ?
> >>>
> >>> Personally I don't see the point of being super-pedantic here, i.e. "look this
> >>> is not just filesystem usage, this is filesystem CHUNK usage"... Consistency
> >>> of having a matching "dev usage" and "fi usage" would have been nicer.
> >>
> >>
> >> What about "btrfs filesystem chunk-usage" ?
> >
> > Uhm? Had to reread this several times, but it looks like you're repeating
> > exactly the same question that I was already answering in the quoted part.
> >
> > To clarify even more, personally I'd like if there would have been "btrfs dev
> > usage" and "btrfs fi usage". Do not see the need to specifically make the 2nd
> > one "chunk-usage" instead of simply "usage".
>
> I don't like "usage" because it to me seems to be too much generic.
> Because both "btrfs filesystem disk-usage" and "btrfs device disk-usage"
> report about chunk (and/or block group) infos, I am investigating
> about
> - btrfs filesystem chunk-usage
> - btrfs device chunk-usage
Most people aren't going to know (or care) what a chunk is. I'm
much happier with Roman's suggestion of btrfs {fi,dev} usage.
Hugo.
--
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
PGP key: 65E74AC0 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
--- Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. ---
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
