Re: btrfs df confusion

[Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@gmail.com>]

On 12/27/2012 12:59 PM, Brendan Hide wrote:
> Hi

Hi,

> 
> I've made some updates on the wiki and I'd like a technical review for
> correctness. This particular topic is already confusing - some
> unnecessary sarcasm made it even more so:
> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Why_does_df_show_incorrect_free_space_for_my_RAID_volume.3F

I posted some patches in order to address this issue. However these
aren't integrated (yet). At the end I think that I reached a general
consensus about the wording. A general description is here [1]. The
patch related to man page is here [2], which can help about the wording.

I hope that it will help your work.

BR
G.Baroncelli


> 
> 
> Due to the terms "used" and "allocated" in the wiki, viric in #btrfs
> made the good suggestion that we could adjust the show and df output
> with more intuitive language:
> 
> Before I git a patch together, please let me know if there are any good
> reasons why we wouldn't want to make such a change.
> 
> (13:31:29) viric: zatricky: "devid ... used" are allocated data, while
> "FS bytes used" is the sum of used bytes, isn't it?
> (13:33:28) zatricky: viric: correct
> (13:33:52) viric: zatricky: maybe the devid lines could be changed
> s/used/allocated/
> (13:34:37) zatricky: viric: that's a good idea - would make it more
> intuitive
> (13:35:29) viric: the same way, 'btrfs fi df' could change
> s/total/allocated
> ^ GMT+2 ;)
> 
> Thanks
> 

[1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/21071
[2]
http://markmail.org/thread/nol2gcjky4cxndhv#query:+page:1+mid:xqnyqp7slb7rrach+state:results

-- 
gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it>
Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D  17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5