From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <c.heiss@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1ADA97241 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:22:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B1AC6175D1 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:22:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:22:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D47B0420EA for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:22:26 +0100 (CET) From: Christoph Heiss <c.heiss@proxmox.com> To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:22:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20240304132221.901327-4-c.heiss@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.43.0 In-Reply-To: <20240304132221.901327-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com> References: <20240304132221.901327-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.005 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH docs 3/9] local-btrfs: unify casing for btrfs X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2024 13:22:57 -0000 It's mostly spelled BTRFS anyway in our documentation (and also the official casing AFAICS), so align a few instances where it spelled lowercase. Signed-off-by: Christoph Heiss <c.heiss@proxmox.com> --- local-btrfs.adoc | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/local-btrfs.adoc b/local-btrfs.adoc index b04d0a3..3512131 100644 --- a/local-btrfs.adoc +++ b/local-btrfs.adoc @@ -69,10 +69,10 @@ btrfs: local-btrfs content iso,vztmpl,backup,images,rootdir ---- -This explicitly disables the default `local` storage in favor of a btrfs +This explicitly disables the default `local` storage in favor of a BTRFS specific storage entry on the additional subvolume. -The `btrfs` command is used to configure and manage the btrfs file system, +The `btrfs` command is used to configure and manage the BTRFS file system, After the installation, the following command lists all additional subvolumes: ---- @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ pvesm add btrfs my-storage --path /my-storage Creating a subvolume ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -Creating a subvolume links it to a path in the btrfs file system, where it will +Creating a subvolume links it to a path in the BTRFS file system, where it will appear as a regular directory. ---- @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ This change will take effect after rebooting. Checking Space Usage ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -The classic `df` tool may output confusing values for some btrfs setups. +The classic `df` tool may output confusing values for some BTRFS setups. For a better estimate use the `btrfs filesystem usage /PATH` command, for example: ---- -- 2.43.0