From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from outrelay07.libero.it ([212.52.84.111]:38860 "EHLO outrelay07.libero.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752381AbaBJWPE (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:15:04 -0500 Message-ID: <52F94F5D.6000908@libero.it> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:14:53 +0100 From: Goffredo Baroncelli Reply-To: kreijack@inwind.it MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hugo Mills , Josef Bacik , "lin >> \"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org\"" Subject: Re: What to do about df and btrfs fi df References: <52F9014F.6070901@fb.com> <20140210170606.GK6490@carfax.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20140210170606.GK6490@carfax.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/10/2014 06:06 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: > Biggest multiplier leads to the pessimistic estimate, which is what > I'd prefer to see here, so that's good. Agree with this. I would prefer to use as "raid multiplier" the ratio total data block groups + total metadata block group -------------------------------------------------------------- disk space allocated for data and metdata block group I hope that this would work better when we have a filesystem composed by small (inlined) files or when we will have per-subvolume RAID levels. -- gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it> Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5