Re: [RFC] btrfs fi df output [Was Re: BTRF - Storage Usage]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 09:17:59AM +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:02:35 +0200
Goffredo Baroncelli [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Sorry for the space error:
Below a more correct example

$ btrfs filesystem disk-free /
Summary:
    Total:             	        135.00GB
    Allocated:             	 10.51GB
    Unallocated:            	124.49GB
    Free_(Estimated)              86.56GB
    Average_disk_efficiency:         62 %

How do you estimate "Free" here? Sorry I didn't check the source code in git,
but from the "Details" below nothing leads me to believe that this FS is
doomed to only be able to usefully utilize only ~86GB of the partition, and not
more.

Are you ready to answer the flood of questions from people why their disk is
only 62% efficient, and how to tune it to 100%? :-)

   Data_to_disk_ratio, maybe?

Why use underscores instead of spaces?

   So that you can use, say, "read" in the shell to extract data from
each line. To that end, there should be a space between the value and
the unit throughout.

quoted

Details:
    Chunk-type    Mode       Allocated        Used        Free
    ----------    ----       ---------    --------   ---------

   Minor thing: The underlines are largely superfluous. Few basic CL
tools I can think of use them.

quoted

    Data          Single        4.01GB      2.16GB      1.87GB
    System        DUP          16.00MB      4.00KB      7.99MB
    System        Single        4.00MB        0.00      4.00MB
    Metadata      DUP           6.00GB    429.16MB      2.57GB
    Metadata      Single        8.00MB        0.00      8.00MB

   I think we need another column here, to indicate how much *actual*
disk space is used by each row, so adding up that column will give you
the "Allocated" value in the first clause. I think that's probably the
biggest cause of confusion. "Raw alloc.", maybe, and use the term
"raw" somewhere in the first clause to hammer the point home.

   My only concern here is that we're a bit too close to the existing
solution (albeit merging the two sets of output), which has proven
itself over time to be somewhat confusing. I think the Alloc_Raw
column is the minimum necessary to link the two in some easily
determinable way. Adding totals to Alloc_Raw, and Used (but not Free
or Alloc) would help, I think. I don't think it's useful to add them
to the Free or Alloc columns, because those figures change as the FS
allocates chunks, and we'll end up with people querying the fact that
the total of Free doesn't add up to any of the figures in the
summary.

   Say, something like this:

Summary_(Raw):
  Total:                    135.00 GiB
  Allocated:            	 10.51 GiB
  Unallocated:            	124.49 GiB
  Free_(Estimated):          86.56 GiB
  Average_disk_efficiency:      62 %

Details:
  Chunk_type  Mode    Alloc_Raw  Alloc      Used        Free
  Data        Single   4.01 GiB   4.01 GiB    2.16 GiB  1.87 GiB
  System      DUP     32.00 MiB  16.00 MiB    4.00 KiB  7.99 MiB
  System      Single   4.00 MiB   4.00 MiB    0.00 B    4.00 MiB
  Metadata    DUP     12.00 GiB   6.00 GiB  429.16 MiB  2.57 GiB
  Metadata    Single   8.00 MiB   8.00 MiB    0.00 B    8.00 MiB
  Total               16.04 GiB               2.59 GiB

   The other thing is that there should be a switch (or possibly two)
to give highly machine-readable versions of the output -- no units
(units as bytes by default, with other units settable by a switch),
tab-separated, possibly a different option for each of the above
output clauses.

   Ultimately, I think the bikeshed should be turquoise.

   Hugo.

-- 
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
  PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
              --- Python is executable pseudocode; perl ---              
                        is executable line-noise.