From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:58911 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750943AbaBHWAF (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Feb 2014 17:00:05 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WCFwS-0001l2-5C for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 23:00:04 +0100 Received: from 37-4-166-128-dynip.superkabel.de ([37.4.166.128]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 23:00:04 +0100 Received: from hurikhan77+btrfs by 37-4-166-128-dynip.superkabel.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 23:00:04 +0100 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Kai Krakow Subject: Re: Provide a better free space estimate on RAID1 Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:50:11 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20140206021516.304732cd@natsu> <20140207104005.7bd1438a@natsu> <1B8BB06F-64EA-40EC-B0D7-FB4A38928DA3@colorremedies.com> <2016480.0iFfLibb6i@merkaba> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Martin Steigerwald schrieb: > While I understand that there is *never* a guarentee that a given free > space can really be allocated by a process cause other processes can > allocate space as well in the mean time, and while I understand that its > difficult to provide an accurate to provide exact figures as soon as RAID > settings can be set per subvolume, it still think its important to improve > on the figures. The question here: Does the free space indicator "fail" predictably or inpredictably? It will do the latter with this change. -- Replies to list only preferred.