From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.216.52]:33837 "EHLO mail-qa0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750797AbaLGPiA convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2014 10:38:00 -0500 Received: by mail-qa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id dc16so2377632qab.25 for ; Sun, 07 Dec 2014 07:37:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <44320137.fRRuR6EFMP@merkaba> References: <44320137.fRRuR6EFMP@merkaba> From: Shriramana Sharma Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 21:07:39 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why is the actual disk usage of btrfs considered unknowable? To: Martin Steigerwald Cc: linux-btrfs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > I never read that the actual disk usage is unknown. But I read that the actual > what is free is unknown. And there are several reasons for that: That is totally understood. But I guess when your alloc space is nearing 90% of your disk capacity, and used space is sorta 80% or so of the alloc space, I guess it's a reasonable thing to expect that people should add a drive to the pool, which btrfs makes so easy. Given this, why do people complain about btrfs not being predictable when it comes to ENOSPC? Even with any other FS, I do think I'd not like my files to occupy more than 90% or so since even then defrag would probably not work. -- Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा