From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from outrelay08.libero.it ([212.52.84.112]:35209 "EHLO outrelay08.libero.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752164AbaBQSJ4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:09:56 -0500 Message-ID: <53025073.80709@inwind.it> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:09:55 +0100 From: Goffredo Baroncelli Reply-To: kreijack@inwind.it MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Murphy , Hugo Mills CC: Roman Mamedov , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] Add command btrfs filesystem disk-usage References: <1392318441-9224-1-git-send-email-kreijack@libero.it> <52FD1AD6.50500@libero.it> <20140214012810.26297146@natsu> <52FD21B4.4050502@libero.it> <20140214030045.415e21da@natsu> <52FE58EF.1060901@libero.it> <20140215001110.76d8226f@natsu> <52FE602D.7060109@libero.it> <20140214183400.GA3351@carfax.org.uk> <08C5C865-03F9-413A-873A-995393E1FABD@colorremedies.com> In-Reply-To: <08C5C865-03F9-413A-873A-995393E1FABD@colorremedies.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/15/2014 11:23 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Hugo Mills wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 07:27:57PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: >>> On 02/14/2014 07:11 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote: >>>> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:57:03 +0100 >>>> Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 02/13/2014 10:00 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:49:08 +0100 >>>>>> Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the comments, however I don't like du not usage; but you are right >>>>>>> when you don't like "disk-usage". What about "btrfs filesystem chunk-usage" ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally I don't see the point of being super-pedantic here, i.e. "look this >>>>>> is not just filesystem usage, this is filesystem CHUNK usage"... Consistency >>>>>> of having a matching "dev usage" and "fi usage" would have been nicer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What about "btrfs filesystem chunk-usage" ? >>>> >>>> Uhm? Had to reread this several times, but it looks like you're repeating >>>> exactly the same question that I was already answering in the quoted part. >>>> >>>> To clarify even more, personally I'd like if there would have been "btrfs dev >>>> usage" and "btrfs fi usage". Do not see the need to specifically make the 2nd >>>> one "chunk-usage" instead of simply "usage". >>> >>> I don't like "usage" because it to me seems to be too much generic. >>> Because both "btrfs filesystem disk-usage" and "btrfs device disk-usage" >>> report about chunk (and/or block group) infos, I am investigating >>> about >>> - btrfs filesystem chunk-usage >>> - btrfs device chunk-usage >> >> Most people aren't going to know (or care) what a chunk is. I'm >> much happier with Roman's suggestion of btrfs {fi,dev} usage. > > Or btrfs filesystem examine, or btrfs filesystem detail, which are > semi-consistent with mdadm for obtaining similar data. > I have to agree with Chris: looking at the output of "btrfs fi disk-usage" $ sudo ./btrfs filesystem disk-usage -t /mnt/btrfs1/ Data Data Metadata Metadata System System Single RAID6 Single RAID5 Single RAID5 Unallocated /dev/vdb 8.00MB 1.00GB 8.00MB 1.00GB 4.00MB 4.00MB 97.98GB /dev/vdc - 1.00GB - 1.00GB - 4.00MB 98.00GB /dev/vdd - 1.00GB - 1.00GB - 4.00MB 98.00GB /dev/vde - 1.00GB - 1.00GB - 4.00MB 98.00GB ====== ======= ======== ======== ====== ======= =========== Total 8.00MB 2.00GB 8.00MB 3.00GB 4.00MB 12.00MB 391.97GB Used 0.00 11.25MB 0.00 36.00KB 0.00 4.00KB it is hard to tell that this can be named "filesystem usage". I think that "details" or "examine" is a better name. Regarding "btrfs device usage", it seems to me more coherent. But as reported before consistency also matters, so now I am inclined to use "detail" (or examine) also for "btrfs device" > > Chris Murphy > Regards Goffredo -- gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it> Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5