Hi,
the results of running ''df'' against a btrfs volume are
somewhat
unintuitive from a user point of view. On a single drive btrfs volume,
created with ''mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 /dev/sda6'', I am
getting
the following result:
/dev/sda6 1.4T 594G 804G 43% /mnt
while ''btrfs-show'' displays much more expected result:
Label: none uuid: 46e2f2b6-e3a6-4b02-8fdc-f9d0fb0882e0
Total devices 1 FS bytes used 593.15GB
devid 1 size 1.36TB used 1.26TB path /dev/sda6
IMHO it would be more intuitive for df in this case to show 699GB
total capacity (based on the fact that data is mirrored, and users
probably are not concerned with metadata handling during normal
usage), the ''used space'' probably should include the space
taken up by
metadata in addition to data usage (after all, this space is not
available for user data) and free space should report only data space
available (because this is what the user is usually expecting). Or, in
other words: the result of ''df'' should not concern the user
with the
details of raid0/raid1/raid10 used either for data or metadata.
Anyone care to comment?
kudos :-)
Leszek ''skolima'' Ciesielski
---
I am running kernel 2.6.31-gentoo and using btrfs-progs 0.19, please
excuse me if my comments are no longer relevant (however, I did check
commit messages from the version I use up until
linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git master-HEAD and did not find
anything related to the topic).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Leszek Ciesielski wrote:> Hi, > > the results of running ''df'' against a btrfs volume are somewhat > unintuitive from a user point of view. On a single drive btrfs volume, > created with ''mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 /dev/sda6'', I am getting > the following result: > > /dev/sda6 1.4T 594G 804G 43% /mnt > > while ''btrfs-show'' displays much more expected result: > > Label: none uuid: 46e2f2b6-e3a6-4b02-8fdc-f9d0fb0882e0 > Total devices 1 FS bytes used 593.15GB > devid 1 size 1.36TB used 1.26TB path /dev/sda6 > > IMHO it would be more intuitive for df in this case to show 699GB > total capacity (based on the fact that data is mirrored, and users > probably are not concerned with metadata handling during normal > usage), the ''used space'' probably should include the space taken up by > metadata in addition to data usage (after all, this space is not > available for user data) and free space should report only data space > available (because this is what the user is usually expecting). Or, in > other words: the result of ''df'' should not concern the user with the > details of raid0/raid1/raid10 used either for data or metadata.I agree that df output sucks... but I''ve been there before with another filesystem on another OS. The sad fact is df output is too simplistic for the features of modern (last 20 years) systems. There is no way to make df report a value other than "raw space" (which is what btrfs reports today) that will be accurate under all possible raid conditions. The problem is each file can be stored in a different raid (OK not done now, but permitted) and different COW state. That means space_used_per_user_file_block is not constant. So btrfs can only report "best case" or "worst case", but neither will be true. jim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi,
in a long overdue followup to my previous email, I am sending a patch
that modifies the result of running ''df'' against a btrfs
volume. I
understand that, give the simplicity of ''df'', there is not
''correct''
solution - I do think however, that the changed output is more
intuitive. Most importantly - the free/used space percentage are
reported correctly, which should decrease the frequency of ''my 50%
filled btrfs volume is failing with ENOSPC'' emails.
Would anyone like to comment?
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
index 8a1ea6e..893c154 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
@@ -623,13 +623,18 @@ static int btrfs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry,
struct kstatfs *buf)
{
struct btrfs_root *root = btrfs_sb(dentry->d_sb);
struct btrfs_super_block *disk_super = &root->fs_info->super_copy;
+ struct btrfs_device *device;
int bits = dentry->d_sb->s_blocksize_bits;
__be32 *fsid = (__be32 *)root->fs_info->fsid;
buf->f_namelen = BTRFS_NAME_LEN;
buf->f_blocks = btrfs_super_total_bytes(disk_super) >> bits;
- buf->f_bfree = buf->f_blocks -
- (btrfs_super_bytes_used(disk_super) >> bits);
+ buf->f_bfree = buf->f_blocks;
+ mutex_lock(&root->fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
+ list_for_each_entry(device, &root->fs_info->fs_devices->devices,
dev_list) {
+ buf->f_bfree -= (device->bytes_used >> bits);
+ }
+ mutex_unlock(&root->fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
buf->f_bavail = buf->f_bfree;
buf->f_bsize = dentry->d_sb->s_blocksize;
buf->f_type = BTRFS_SUPER_MAGIC;
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:21 PM, jim owens <jowens@hp.com>
wrote:> Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the results of running ''df'' against a btrfs volume
are somewhat
>> unintuitive from a user point of view. On a single drive btrfs volume,
>> created with ''mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1
/dev/sda6'', I am getting
>> the following result:
>>
>> /dev/sda6 1.4T 594G 804G 43% /mnt
>>
>> while ''btrfs-show'' displays much more expected
result:
>>
>> Label: none uuid: 46e2f2b6-e3a6-4b02-8fdc-f9d0fb0882e0
>> Total devices 1 FS bytes used 593.15GB
>> devid 1 size 1.36TB used 1.26TB path /dev/sda6
>>
>> IMHO it would be more intuitive for df in this case to show 699GB
>> total capacity (based on the fact that data is mirrored, and users
>> probably are not concerned with metadata handling during normal
>> usage), the ''used space'' probably should include the
space taken up by
>> metadata in addition to data usage (after all, this space is not
>> available for user data) and free space should report only data space
>> available (because this is what the user is usually expecting). Or, in
>> other words: the result of ''df'' should not concern
the user with the
>> details of raid0/raid1/raid10 used either for data or metadata.
>
> I agree that df output sucks... but I''ve been there before with
> another filesystem on another OS. The sad fact is df output is
> too simplistic for the features of modern (last 20 years) systems.
>
> There is no way to make df report a value other than "raw space"
> (which is what btrfs reports today) that will be accurate under
> all possible raid conditions. The problem is each file can be
> stored in a different raid (OK not done now, but permitted) and
> different COW state. That means space_used_per_user_file_block
> is not constant.
>
> So btrfs can only report "best case" or "worst case",
but neither
> will be true.
>
> jim
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Leszek Ciesielski <skolima@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi, > > in a long overdue followup to my previous email, I am sending a patch > that modifies the result of running ''df'' against a btrfs volume. I > understand that, give the simplicity of ''df'', there is not ''correct'' > solution - I do think however, that the changed output is more > intuitive. Most importantly - the free/used space percentage are > reported correctly, which should decrease the frequency of ''my 50% > filled btrfs volume is failing with ENOSPC'' emails. > > Would anyone like to comment? > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c > index 8a1ea6e..893c154 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c > @@ -623,13 +623,18 @@ static int btrfs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, > struct kstatfs *buf) > { > struct btrfs_root *root = btrfs_sb(dentry->d_sb); > struct btrfs_super_block *disk_super = &root->fs_info->super_copy; > + struct btrfs_device *device; > int bits = dentry->d_sb->s_blocksize_bits; > __be32 *fsid = (__be32 *)root->fs_info->fsid; > > buf->f_namelen = BTRFS_NAME_LEN; > buf->f_blocks = btrfs_super_total_bytes(disk_super) >> bits; > - buf->f_bfree = buf->f_blocks - > - (btrfs_super_bytes_used(disk_super) >> bits); > + buf->f_bfree = buf->f_blocks; > + mutex_lock(&root->fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex); > + list_for_each_entry(device, &root->fs_info->fs_devices->devices, dev_list) { > + buf->f_bfree -= (device->bytes_used >> bits); > + } > + mutex_unlock(&root->fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex); > buf->f_bavail = buf->f_bfree; > buf->f_bsize = dentry->d_sb->s_blocksize; > buf->f_type = BTRFS_SUPER_MAGIC; > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:21 PM, jim owens <jowens@hp.com> wrote: >> Leszek Ciesielski wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> the results of running ''df'' against a btrfs volume are somewhat >>> unintuitive from a user point of view. On a single drive btrfs volume, >>> created with ''mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 /dev/sda6'', I am getting >>> the following result: >>> >>> /dev/sda6 1.4T 594G 804G 43% /mnt >>> >>> while ''btrfs-show'' displays much more expected result: >>> >>> Label: none uuid: 46e2f2b6-e3a6-4b02-8fdc-f9d0fb0882e0 >>> Total devices 1 FS bytes used 593.15GB >>> devid 1 size 1.36TB used 1.26TB path /dev/sda6 >>> >>> IMHO it would be more intuitive for df in this case to show 699GB >>> total capacity (based on the fact that data is mirrored, and users >>> probably are not concerned with metadata handling during normal >>> usage), the ''used space'' probably should include the space taken up by >>> metadata in addition to data usage (after all, this space is not >>> available for user data) and free space should report only data space >>> available (because this is what the user is usually expecting). Or, in >>> other words: the result of ''df'' should not concern the user with the >>> details of raid0/raid1/raid10 used either for data or metadata. >> >> I agree that df output sucks... but I''ve been there before with >> another filesystem on another OS. The sad fact is df output is >> too simplistic for the features of modern (last 20 years) systems. >> >> There is no way to make df report a value other than "raw space" >> (which is what btrfs reports today) that will be accurate under >> all possible raid conditions. The problem is each file can be >> stored in a different raid (OK not done now, but permitted) and >> different COW state. That means space_used_per_user_file_block >> is not constant. >> >> So btrfs can only report "best case" or "worst case", but neither >> will be true. >> >> jim >> >> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >I felt like the ''df'' value that was returned after applying this patch was misleading. Btrfs pre-allocates an amount of space for data, metadata, and system data, but it doesn''t actually use all that space (until the volume begins to get full). The ''df'' value returned with this patch applied is the amount of space that is ''allocated'' (which is labeled as ''used'' in the btrfs-show output, but really isn''t all used yet). For example, when I tested this patch on my volume, the result was based on 10.00GB of allocated data space. But only 7.22GB of the allocated data space had been used. It highlights an odd problem. The volume runs out of space based on the allocated areas. So in that sense this patch gives a more accurate representation of when the disk is full. But from what I''ve seen so far, btrfs operates most of the time with a fair amount of fat between allocated space and actually used space. So this patch doesn''t give you a good idea of how much space is actually left for you to use. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html