From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from [212.13.216.74] ([212.13.216.74]:44934 "EHLO mail.39.gs" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754282Ab3FBQwk (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Jun 2013 12:52:40 -0400 Received: from mail.39.gs (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.39.gs (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4DF2288841 for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2013 17:52:38 +0100 (BST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 17:52:38 +0100 From: Tim Eggleston To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RAID10 total capacity incorrect In-Reply-To: <20130602163015.GG20133@carfax.org.uk> References: <7b97469e82e675814317efef48cc3d71@mail.39.gs> <20130602163015.GG20133@carfax.org.uk> Message-ID: <4cd17d2ff5a252261c4ab2f3800207b5@mail.39.gs> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Hugo, Thanks for your reply, good to know it's not an error as such (just me being an idiot!). > Additional space will be allocated from the available unallocated > space as the FS needs it. So I guess my question becomes, how much of that available unallocated space do I have? Instinctively the btrfs df output feels like it's missing an equivalent to the "size" column from vanilla df. Is there a method of getting this in a RAID situation? I understand that btrfs RAID is more complicated than md RAID, so it's ok if the answer at this point is "no"... Thanks again, ---tim