On 2012-10-28 00:38, Hugo Mills wrote:

On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:30:44AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:

quoted

Am Samstag, 27. Oktober 2012 schrieb Michael Kjörling:

quoted

On 27 Oct 2012 18:43 +0200, from Martin@lichtvoll.de (Martin 

Steigerwald):

quoted

quoted

Possibly this could be done tabular as well, like:

quoted

quoted

           Data: RAID 0   System: RAID 1   Unused
/dev/vdb     307.25 MB                -        2.23 GB
/dev/vdc     307.25 MB             8 MB        2.69 GB
/dev/vdd     307.25 MB             8 MB        2.24 GB
           ============   ==============   ============
TOTAL        921.75 MB            16 MB        7.16 GB

Hmmm, good idea. I like it this way around.

It would scale better with the number of drives and there is a good way to 
place the totals.

I wonder about how to possibly include the used part of each tree. With 
mostly 5 columns it might be doable.

   Note that this could get arbitrarily wide in the presence of the
(planned) per-object replication config. Otherwise, it works. The
width is probably likely to grow more slowly than the length, though,
so this way round is probably the better option. IMO. Eggshell blue is
good enough. :)

I liked the Martin idea too. However I think that it is not applicable.
Even on my simple test bed I got

	Data,Single:              8.00MB
	Data,RAID0:             307.25MB
	Metadata,Single:          8.00MB
	Metadata,RAID1:         460.94MB
	System,Single:            4.00MB
	System,RAID1:             8.00MB

Plus we can have also  Data+Metadata...

   Hugo.

-- 
gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it>
Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D  17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5