From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:47832 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758260Ab2I1R1A (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:27:00 -0400 Received: by bkcjk13 with SMTP id jk13so3729043bkc.19 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5065DDF4.8010907@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:27:16 +0200 From: Goffredo Baroncelli MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hugo Mills , Roman Mamedov , kreijack@libero.it, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Maury?= , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] btrfs fi df output [Was Re: BTRF - Storage Usage] References: <20120927124427.6014ddq7wg88cc0o@imp.inserm.fr> <5064B96B.7060502@libero.it> <5064BEEB.1090707@libero.it> <20120928091759.6d096016@natsu> <20120928085840.GE6136@carfax.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20120928085840.GE6136@carfax.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Hugo, On 09/28/2012 10:58 AM, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 09:17:59AM +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:02:35 +0200 >> Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: >> [...] > So that you can use, say, "read" in the shell to extract data from > each line. To that end, there should be a space between the value and > the unit throughout. > >>> Details: >>> Chunk-type Mode Allocated Used Free >>> ---------- ---- --------- -------- --------- > > Minor thing: The underlines are largely superfluous. Few basic CL > tools I can think of use them. Ok > >>> Data Single 4.01GB 2.16GB 1.87GB >>> System DUP 16.00MB 4.00KB 7.99MB >>> System Single 4.00MB 0.00 4.00MB >>> Metadata DUP 6.00GB 429.16MB 2.57GB >>> Metadata Single 8.00MB 0.00 8.00MB > > I think we need another column here, to indicate how much *actual* > disk space is used by each row, so adding up that column will give you > the "Allocated" value in the first clause. I think that's probably the > biggest cause of confusion. "Raw alloc.", maybe, and use the term > "raw" somewhere in the first clause to hammer the point home. I think that there is a little misunderstanding. We are saying the same thing. Only I call "allocated" what you call "raw alloc" > > My only concern here is that we're a bit too close to the existing > solution (albeit merging the two sets of output), which has proven > itself over time to be somewhat confusing. I think the Alloc_Raw > column is the minimum necessary to link the two in some easily > determinable way. Adding totals to Alloc_Raw, and Used (but not Free > or Alloc) would help, I think. I don't think it's useful to add them > to the Free or Alloc columns, because those figures change as the FS > allocates chunks, and we'll end up with people querying the fact that > the total of Free doesn't add up to any of the figures in the > summary. > > Say, something like this: > > Summary_(Raw): > Total: 135.00 GiB > Allocated: 10.51 GiB > Unallocated: 124.49 GiB > Free_(Estimated): 86.56 GiB > Average_disk_efficiency: 62 % > > Details: > Chunk_type Mode Alloc_Raw Alloc Used Free > Data Single 4.01 GiB 4.01 GiB 2.16 GiB 1.87 GiB > System DUP 32.00 MiB 16.00 MiB 4.00 KiB 7.99 MiB > System Single 4.00 MiB 4.00 MiB 0.00 B 4.00 MiB > Metadata DUP 12.00 GiB 6.00 GiB 429.16 MiB 2.57 GiB > Metadata Single 8.00 MiB 8.00 MiB 0.00 B 8.00 MiB > Total 16.04 GiB 2.59 GiB > > The other thing is that there should be a switch (or possibly two) > to give highly machine-readable versions of the output -- no units > (units as bytes by default, with other units settable by a switch), > tab-separated, possibly a different option for each of the above > output clauses. I fully Agree. But my first concern was about the wording (if fact even though we are saying the same thing you didn't understood me). Let me propose the following: Summary: Disk_size: 135.00 GiB Disk_allocated: 10.51 GiB Disk_unallocated: 124.49 GiB Used: 2.59 GiB Free_(Estimated): 91.93 GiB Average_disk_efficiency: 70 % Details: Chunk-type Mode Disk-allocated Used Available Data Single 4.01GB 2.16GB 1.87GB System DUP 16.00MB 4.00KB 7.99MB System Single 4.00MB 0.00 4.00MB Metadata DUP 6.00GB 429.16MB 2.57GB Metadata Single 8.00MB 0.00 8.00MB Where: Disk-allocated -> space used on the disk by the chunk Disk-size -> size of the disk Disk-unallocated -> disk not used in any chunk Used -> space used by the files/metadata Available -> space available in the *allocated* chunk Free_(Estimated) -> Theoretical free space for files (Disk_size * Average_disk_efficiency - Used) > > Ultimately, I think the bikeshed should be turquoise. ? :-) > > Hugo. > Ciao Goffredo