On Feb 14, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Hugo Mills <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Or btrfs filesystem examine, or btrfs filesystem detail, which are semi-consistent with mdadm for obtaining similar data.
Chris Murphy--
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
