From: Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@gmail.com>
To: "kreijack@inwind.it" <kreijack@inwind.it>
Cc: linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
cwillu <cwillu@cwillu.com>,
"Martin Steigerwald" <Martin@lichtvoll.de>,
"Chris Murphy" <lists@colorremedies.com>,
"Michael Kjörling" <michael@kjorling.se>,
"Hugo Mills" <hugo@carfax.org.uk>
Subject: [RFC][V2] New attempt to a better "btrfs fi df"
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:21:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <508F015F.5090507@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50899151.1070503@inwind.it>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
this is a new attempt to improve the output of the command "btrfs fi df".
The previous attempt received a good reception. However there was no a
general consensus about the wording.
Moreover I still didn't understand how btrfs was using the disks.
A my first attempt was to develop a new command which shows how the
disks are divided in chunks.
Then after some thoughts I made three commands:
$ btrfs filesystem df <path>
# btrfs device disk-usage <path>
# btrfs filesystem disk-usage <path>
The first one shows only the section that before I called "Summary":
$ ./btrfs filesystem df /mnt/btrfs1/
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 %
The second one show the chunk list grouped by devices:
$ sudo ./btrfs device disk-usage /mnt/btrfs1/
/dev/vdb 3.00GB
Data,Single: 8.00MB
Data,RAID0: 307.25MB
Metadata,Single: 8.00MB
Metadata,RAID1: 460.94MB
System,Single: 4.00MB
Unallocated: 2.23GB
/dev/vdc 3.00GB
Data,RAID0: 307.25MB
System,RAID1: 8.00MB
Unallocated: 2.69GB
/dev/vdd 3.00GB
Data,RAID0: 307.25MB
Metadata,RAID1: 460.94MB
System,RAID1: 8.00MB
Unallocated: 2.24GB
/dev/vdf 12.00GB
Unallocated: 12.00GB
The third one shows the devices grouped by chunk type; it has two kind
of output the first kind of output is a linear one (as before); the
second kind of output is in a tabular form. I don't like it because it
is suitable only when the filesystem uses few profile; otherwise this
output is larger than 80 columns.
$ sudo ./btrfs filesystem disk-usage /mnt/btrfs1/
Data,Single: Size:8.00MB, Used:0.00
/dev/vdb 8.00MB
Data,RAID0: Size:921.75MB, Used:256.00KB
/dev/vdb 307.25MB
/dev/vdc 307.25MB
/dev/vdd 307.25MB
Metadata,Single: Size:8.00MB, Used:0.00
/dev/vdb 8.00MB
Metadata,RAID1: Size:460.94MB, Used:24.00KB
/dev/vdb 460.94MB
/dev/vdd 460.94MB
System,Single: Size:4.00MB, Used:0.00
/dev/vdb 4.00MB
System,RAID1: Size:8.00MB, Used:4.00KB
/dev/vdc 8.00MB
/dev/vdd 8.00MB
Unallocated:
/dev/vdb 2.23GB
/dev/vdc 2.69GB
/dev/vdd 2.24GB
/dev/vdf 12.00GB
$ sudo ./btrfs filesystem disk-usage -t /mnt/btrfs1/
Data Data Metadata System System
Single RAID0 Single Single RAID1 Unused
vdb 8.00MB 307.25MB 8.00MB 4.00MB - 2.23GB
vdc - 307.25MB - - 8.00MB 2.69GB
vdd - 307.25MB - - 8.00MB 2.24GB
vdf - - - - - 12.00GB
========= ========= ========= ========= ========= =========
Total 8.00MB 921.75MB 8.00MB 4.00MB 8.00MB 19.17GB
Used 0.00 256.00KB 0.00 0.00 4.00KB
The latest output is a fake, because the original one requires 78-79
columns, so the email reader would rewrap it. I had to remove a column
(Metadata,RAID1) : this confirm me that this kind of output is
unusable as general case.
The code is pullable from
http://cassiopea.homelinux.net/git/btrfs-progs-unstable.git
branch
info-cmd
I don't publish the patches because aren't in a good shape. The
example is a filesystem based on three disks of 3GB and one disk of 12 GB.
Comments are welcome.
Known bugs:
- - the commands btrfs fi disk-usage and btrfs device disk-usage need
root capability (I use the BTRFS_IOC_TREE_SEARCH
to get the chunk info; so that is unavoidable)
- --
gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it>
Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=TUa5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-29 22:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-25 19:21 [RFC] New attempt to a better "btrfs fi df" Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-10-25 19:40 ` cwillu
2012-10-25 19:59 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-10-25 20:06 ` cwillu
2012-10-25 20:36 ` Chris Murphy
2012-10-25 20:49 ` cwillu
2012-10-25 20:52 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-10-25 20:03 ` Chris Murphy
2012-10-25 20:11 ` cwillu
2012-10-25 20:41 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-10-26 2:33 ` Chris Murphy
2012-10-26 3:36 ` cwillu
2012-10-26 4:03 ` Chris Murphy
2012-10-27 15:05 ` Chris Murphy
2012-10-27 16:43 ` Martin Steigerwald
2012-10-27 19:55 ` Michael Kjörling
2012-10-27 22:30 ` Martin Steigerwald
2012-10-27 22:38 ` Hugo Mills
2012-10-27 23:01 ` Michael Kjörling
2012-10-28 10:58 ` Martin Steigerwald
2012-10-28 8:45 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-10-28 10:38 ` Martin Steigerwald
2012-10-28 10:59 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-10-28 11:18 ` Michael Kjörling
2012-10-28 12:25 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-10-28 12:48 ` Michael Kjörling
2012-10-28 13:22 ` Martin Steigerwald
2012-10-27 23:35 ` Chris Murphy
2012-10-28 11:20 ` Michael Kjörling
2012-10-28 9:01 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-10-28 10:33 ` Martin Steigerwald
2012-10-28 10:58 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-10-28 11:16 ` Martin Steigerwald
2012-10-28 18:27 ` Chris Murphy
2012-10-28 19:06 ` Michael Kjörling
2012-10-28 19:42 ` Chris Murphy
2012-10-28 20:09 ` Michael Kjörling
2012-10-28 20:19 ` Chris Murphy
2012-10-29 9:04 ` Michael Kjörling
2012-10-30 4:41 ` Chris Murphy
2012-10-28 19:42 ` Chris Murphy
2012-10-29 13:06 ` Randy Barlow
2012-10-29 22:21 ` Goffredo Baroncelli [this message]
2012-10-30 9:42 ` [RFC][V2] " Michael Kjörling
2012-10-30 18:15 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-10-30 18:32 ` Michael Kjörling
2012-10-30 20:13 ` Chris Murphy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=508F015F.5090507@gmail.com \
--to=kreijack@gmail.com \
--cc=Martin@lichtvoll.de \
--cc=cwillu@cwillu.com \
--cc=hugo@carfax.org.uk \
--cc=kreijack@inwind.it \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lists@colorremedies.com \
--cc=michael@kjorling.se \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.