Conversation
Because storage devices typically advertise their capacities in "base 1000" rather than "base 1024". A disk advertised as having 2 TB capacity previously showed as 1.8 TiB in the system view. With this diff it now shows as 2 TB which is what a user would expect to see.
It usually shows larger usage because free space (which is used to calculate usage) is counted for only mounted volumes and won't work for multiple partitions with only some mounted.
Not really useful info after removal of free/used info? Also, edge case of it potentially showing "not mounted" if free space really is zero.
|
Could you add before-after screenshots please ? |
BEFORE: 
AFTER: 
|
|
I find it strange to remove information that can be useful to some. I am not sure most people use partitions, so it may have been pretty accurate for common use cases. |
|
Yeah I'm -1 on removing usage info. Why even show disks at all if you're not showing the usage? |
|
Yup seems about right, I've reverted those commits to bring back the usage bar, I'll open another PR to collect/show better usage shortly. |
|
Actually, I'll just make those changes in this PR itself... |
|
This is now what the before-after looks like after commit ec5d71e IMO a little less misleading for both users like me (with many partitions) and most other users who usually either only dual-boot with Windows (so far fewer partitions) or run elementary OS by itself on bare metal or in a VM: BEFORE: AFTER: |
|
Having a bar filled not in direct relation to the fraction above it is confusing. If I get it, 141.6 is the space used. Try to move it to the left or right of the bar and add the total volumes size, like “141.6 / 300 GB”. Or if you prefer, add a line between the disk name and size, and the bar, like “Used: 141.6 GB / 300 GB”. |
Thank you, yes I think I see what you mean, let me maybe add another line like "used / available" or maybe on the same line (unless it gets too lengthy) to look like Note the numbers looks off for someone like me with multiple partitions, but for most users who either only dualboot or run elementary OS by itself the numbers will look more reasonable, less misleading. |
Folks, how does it look now after 28d624d ? Hopefully this PR should be nearer to its intent :-) |
|
This is how it looks on my laptop running os9 exclusively, much better, although I'm going to add some size formatting changes to round off the disk size currently "512.1 GB" to "512 GB" (or "4 TB" instead of "4.0 TB" in my previous screenshots) without any decimal places, eventually in a separate PR if not this one itself. 
|
|
I like it that ! Maybe replace “available” by “allocated” ? |
|
Here is how it looks on my system. Would it be possible enable wrap to the label ? Here the result for example: |
|
@flodavid i prefer not to wrap any text , wondering what @elementary/ux think? btw, in your screenshot the third disk storage card how did the disk name get wrapped? (kingston...) did you modify code with that screenshot? reason why im against wrapping is i dont think people will usually more than 1 or 2 disks? if they do have more, some other layout (of the while cards themselves) fixes could be made in a separate PR. |
|
@flodavid also the word "allocated" seems to me to mean the same thing as "used" so maybe the existing word "available" is ok? or change it to "mounted"? like "Used 10 GB of 20 GB mounted"? though i prefer "available" :-) |
|
Well, something is not right with the storage calculation.
Why allocated is better then available? @vjr, please add ellipsis to the drive name and a tooltip to the label. So it will be possible to see the full name on hover. |
|
I did not edit the CSS or properties on the title, that’s why I think the line should also be responsive. Since every disk volumes are not necessarily formatted and mounted, the system may not have access to the whole disk. And if you have some non allocated or unmounted space, describing the rest as “available” seems unclear to me. That said, an unmounted volume is not “unallocated” so, my logic does not really make sense. |
lol - let me try to find/fix the issue - if you can, would you tell something about that 128gb drive (is it a pen drive?) layout of partition types and what's been mounted? i can make UI changes like ellipses and what not, but would like some definitive guidance from @elementary/ux mainly @danirabbit when they can chime in here :-) |
ah i see it's something to do with encrypted partition(s) - working on it... |
|
@stsdc the size issue (encrypted volumes) exists on main also, so will open a different PR for that issue. for the ellipsize part i am unable to figure out how to do that with granite headerlabel (no |
Accumulate mounted size but avoid counting the same volume multiple times.
|
Why do you prefer ellipsize to the current wrapping ? |
This branch
I'm not sure what this "Mounted" is about but this seems to give a false impression of disk usage. Main
Also seems to not give useful usage information :p Installer
Perhaps it would be nice to list these partitions in this way? But we still don't get a clear picture of usage FilesWe get some usage information here, but it's per partition 
We'd at least save some localisation here if we used the same string construction as Files GNOME Disks
Seems the best representation of actually used space |
Should I reword it back to "available" instead of "mounted" ? To get a really more accurate storage usage picture you'd need to temporarily mount all unmounted partitions then unmount them again, not sure if that's a good idea? This PR is not intended to be perfect, just "less misleading" is the intent :-) |
I think it would be best to match the existing string from Files:
No idea either! But I wonder shouldn't this information probably be available from something like Udisks or some other API? This feels like a solved problem and it seems odd for us not to be relying on a library and/or DBus API
I'm not sure you've achieved that goal here since my usage is far more than 20 MB (almost 90 GB according to GNOME Disks). At least the old way was accurate in reported how much of the disk has been partitioned |
|
@danirabbit I'll reword it to match Files. About the gnome-disks thing, did you mount additional partitions after starting Monitor but before starting gnome-disks? Monitor does not refresh, when I tried gnome-disks it does not show unmounted storage usage info either for me, it also just says "unmounted" - not sure what's going on or if I'm missing something. |
4 participants
BEFORE:
AFTER: