You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 27, 2026. It is now read-only.
Based on some confusion I saw from others recently, it seems the table returned for the command mount:size is unclear. For example, this table is returned for three mounts on on volume:
At first glance, this appears to be a table, which would mean the items in the first row only apply to that row. But really, it's about the disk that applies to all items in that row.
It seems easy enough to split them into two tables, like so:
+---------+-----------+
| Mount | Size |
+---------+-----------+
| data | 4.1 MiB |
| data.ms | 221.4 MiB |
| output | 6.6 MiB |
+---------+-----------+
+---------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Disk | Used | Available | % Used |
+---------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| 1.9 GiB | 238.1 MiB | 1.7 GiB | 12.2% |
+---------+-----------+-----------+--------+
That's more accurate. But it doesn't work well when there are multiple volumes and the information is actually tabular. So I don't know what the solution should be, but ideally, it shouldn't be like the table in the first example.
Based on some confusion I saw from others recently, it seems the table returned for the command
mount:sizeis unclear. For example, this table is returned for three mounts on on volume:At first glance, this appears to be a table, which would mean the items in the first row only apply to that row. But really, it's about the disk that applies to all items in that row.
It seems easy enough to split them into two tables, like so:
That's more accurate. But it doesn't work well when there are multiple volumes and the information is actually tabular. So I don't know what the solution should be, but ideally, it shouldn't be like the table in the first example.