Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Jan Claeys wrote: Op vrijdag 27-03-2009 om 22:04 uur [tijdzone +0800], schreef Chan Chung Hang Christopher: Now that one is new to me. mbit = millibit. Now I can ask people to divide their bits with me. :-D If you think fractions of a bit aren't used, then you should have a look at e.g. entropy calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) Thanks for the link. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Nils Kassube wrote: Christopher Chan wrote: Please do point out where it says megabit = 1000x1000 bits and not 1024 x 1024 bits. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitrate#Prefixes: | When describing bitrates, binary prefixes have almost never been used | and SI prefixes are almost always used with the standard, decimal | meanings, not the old computer-oriented binary meanings. Binary usage | may occasionally be seen when the unit is the byte/s, and is not | typical for telecommunication links. Sometimes it is necessary to seek | clarification of the units used in a particular context. So much for standards. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: Nils Kassube wrote: Christopher Chan wrote: Please do point out where it says megabit = 1000x1000 bits and not 1024 x 1024 bits. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitrate#Prefixes: | When describing bitrates, binary prefixes have almost never been used | and SI prefixes are almost always used with the standard, decimal | meanings, not the old computer-oriented binary meanings. Binary usage | may occasionally be seen when the unit is the byte/s, and is not | typical for telecommunication links. Sometimes it is necessary to seek | clarification of the units used in a particular context. So much for standards. What they're saying is that occasionally people insist on not sticking to the standards - which isn't at all surprising when there are people on lists like this insisting that the standards are wrong, and insisting that the prefix m means exactly the same thing as the prefix M -- derek -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
I suggest you go do some reading before claiming things... E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_over_twisted_pair is a good start: Ethernet over twisted pair refers to the use of a pair of copper cables, twisted around each other, for the physical layer of an Ethernet network (that is, a network in which the Ethernet protocol is used in the data link layer). There are several different standards for a copper-based physical medium. The most widely used are 10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, and 1000BASE-T (Gigabit Ethernet), running at 10 Mbit/s, 100 Mbit/s, and 1000 Mbit/s (1 Gbit/s) respectively. Please do point out where it says megabit = 1000x1000 bits and not 1024 x 1024 bits. I guess the only possible point of contention would be what appears to be 1000mbits = 1gbit. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
On Thursday 26 March 2009 11:54:06 pm Jan Claeys wrote: Op donderdag 26-03-2009 om 11:42 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie Morgan: Yep, its 10 mbit internet I hope you mean 10 Mbit/s, not 10 mbit/s... ;) My connection is 10 mbit. Though the last ISP I had, the sales people tried to say 10 Mbit. They didn't know there's a factor of 8 difference. This is like that Verizon Math: $0.002 and 0.002¢ are totally the same thing...right? -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Mackenzie Morgan wrote: On Thursday 26 March 2009 11:54:06 pm Jan Claeys wrote: Op donderdag 26-03-2009 om 11:42 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie Morgan: Yep, its 10 mbit internet I hope you mean 10 Mbit/s, not 10 mbit/s... ;) My connection is 10 mbit. Though the last ISP I had, the sales people tried to say 10 Mbit. They didn't know there's a factor of 8 difference. This is like that Verizon Math: $0.002 and 0.002¢ are totally the same thing...right? For crying out loud it's MB/Mb megaBYTE and mb megabit. 10Mbit and 10mbit are the same. It's 10Mbyte and 10Mbit that is different. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Christopher Chan wrote: Mackenzie Morgan wrote: On Thursday 26 March 2009 11:54:06 pm Jan Claeys wrote: Op donderdag 26-03-2009 om 11:42 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie Morgan: Yep, its 10 mbit internet I hope you mean 10 Mbit/s, not 10 mbit/s... ;) My connection is 10 mbit. Though the last ISP I had, the sales people tried to say 10 Mbit. They didn't know there's a factor of 8 difference. This is like that Verizon Math: $0.002 and 0.002¢ are totally the same thing...right? For crying out loud it's MB/Mb megaBYTE and mb megabit. 10Mbit and 10mbit are the same. It's 10Mbyte and 10Mbit that is different. If you want to be *strictly* accurate Mbit is megabit and mbit is millibit! - Hence Jan's smiley :-) Max. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
On Friday 27 March 2009 3:09:54 am Christopher Chan wrote: Mackenzie Morgan wrote: On Thursday 26 March 2009 11:54:06 pm Jan Claeys wrote: Op donderdag 26-03-2009 om 11:42 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie Morgan: Yep, its 10 mbit internet I hope you mean 10 Mbit/s, not 10 mbit/s... ;) My connection is 10 mbit. Though the last ISP I had, the sales people tried to say 10 Mbit. They didn't know there's a factor of 8 difference. This is like that Verizon Math: $0.002 and 0.002¢ are totally the same thing...right? For crying out loud it's MB/Mb megaBYTE and mb megabit. 10Mbit and 10mbit are the same. It's 10Mbyte and 10Mbit that is different. I'm sorry, I was completely stupid in that mail. I should sleep more often than once every 3 days... -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
For crying out loud it's MB/Mb megaBYTE and mb megabit. 10Mbit and 10mbit are the same. It's 10Mbyte and 10Mbit that is different. If you want to be *strictly* accurate Mbit is megabit and mbit is millibit! - Hence Jan's smiley :-) Now that one is new to me. mbit = millibit. Now I can ask people to divide their bits with me. :-D -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
I'm sorry, I was completely stupid in that mail. I should sleep more often than once every 3 days... At least you don't do what that Korean dude did when he went without sleep for 3 days. :-) -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Op vrijdag 27-03-2009 om 22:04 uur [tijdzone +0800], schreef Chan Chung Hang Christopher: Now that one is new to me. mbit = millibit. Now I can ask people to divide their bits with me. :-D If you think fractions of a bit aren't used, then you should have a look at e.g. entropy calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) -- Jan Claeys -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Moins, On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:38:31 +0100 Jan Claeys li...@janc.be wrote: Op woensdag 25-03-2009 om 16:19 uur [tijdzone +], schreef Scott James Remnant: On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 15:26 +, Max Bowsher wrote: This assumes you buy into the SI's naming scheme and can say things like kibibyte and tebibyte without bursting into giggles or groaning in despair :-) It isn't SI, it's IEEE I think it's IEEE, CIE ISO now (although I can't be sure about ISO as it's not freely available, but IIRC there is something mentioned in the table of contents that is publicly available on some national standards organisations sites). TBH, I just bursted into a laugh attackfor easyiness: 500 Gigabytes as written on a Harddrive label are not the same as 500 Gigabytes transfered over the Network (when you know HD vendor definition: kilo == 1000 and Network vendor definition normally kilo == 1024) Check for yourself...and be frustrated of different standards (which makes be lol again now ;)) Regards, \sh -- Stephan '\sh' Hermann | OSS Developer Systemadministrator JID: s...@linux-server.org | http://www.sourcecode.de/ GPG ID: 0xC098EFA8| http://leonov.tv/ 3D8B 5138 0852 DA7A B83F DCCB C189 E733 C098 EFA8 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Stephan Hermann wrote: TBH, I just bursted into a laugh attackfor easyiness: 500 Gigabytes as written on a Harddrive label are not the same as 500 Gigabytes transfered over the Network (when you know HD vendor definition: kilo == 1000 and Network vendor definition normally kilo == 1024) What makes you think network vendors would ever use kilobytes to mean 1024 bytes? They want throughput to look good. If you just stick to the accepted definitions, there's no confusion. -- derek -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 08:13 +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: TBH, I just bursted into a laugh attackfor easyiness: 500 Gigabytes as written on a Harddrive label are not the same as 500 Gigabytes transfered over the Network (when you know HD vendor definition: kilo == 1000 and Network vendor definition normally kilo == 1024) The latter isn't true either. Network speeds are generally in thousands of bits per second and multiples thereof. The primary users of binary multiples is the RAM industry, since it's a fundamental multiple of how RAM works. Scott -- Scott James Remnant sc...@canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
On Thursday 26 March 2009 9:57:17 am Scott James Remnant wrote: On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 08:13 +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: TBH, I just bursted into a laugh attackfor easyiness: 500 Gigabytes as written on a Harddrive label are not the same as 500 Gigabytes transfered over the Network (when you know HD vendor definition: kilo == 1000 and Network vendor definition normally kilo == 1024) The latter isn't true either. Network speeds are generally in thousands of bits per second and multiples thereof. Yep, its 10 mbit internet...though usually the people selling it to you don't know the difference and will tell you 10 mbyte internet...So it sounds *great* on the phone...but that's really 1.2mbyte. -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Scott James Remnant wrote: On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 08:13 +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: TBH, I just bursted into a laugh attackfor easyiness: 500 Gigabytes as written on a Harddrive label are not the same as 500 Gigabytes transfered over the Network (when you know HD vendor definition: kilo == 1000 and Network vendor definition normally kilo == 1024) The latter isn't true either. Network speeds are generally in thousands of bits per second and multiples thereof. I don't know about you but I have never seen any network speed measured at anything other than the 1024 bits/bytes = 1 kilo and so on. The primary users of binary multiples is the RAM industry, since it's a fundamental multiple of how RAM works. I have only noticed disk manufacturers put a footnote out saying that their KB/GB/whatever is defined as 1000 and not 1024. Everybody else uses the standard unit of every 1024 for kilo/mega/giga/whatever. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Christopher Chan christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: Scott James Remnant wrote: Network speeds are generally in thousands of bits per second and multiples thereof. I don't know about you but I have never seen any network speed measured at anything other than the 1024 bits/bytes = 1 kilo and so on. I believe he's talking about network devices manufacturer's (ethernet, wifi, modem, etc), which do indeed bis Xbps. You seem to be referring to the software interfaces and GUIs for downloads/uploads, i.e., applications. regards FF -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
I believe he's talking about network devices manufacturer's (ethernet, wifi, modem, etc), which do indeed bis Xbps. You seem to be referring to the software interfaces and GUIs for downloads/uploads, i.e., applications. They still do not use multiples of 1000 for kilo/mega/whatever. No network device manufacturer has used anything other than 1024 for kilo/mega/giga. The best you can say is that ISPs use 'meg' when referring to megabit or mixing up the use of bit or byte with whatever prefix when referring to broadband connections.. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 13:57 +, Scott James Remnant wrote: On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 08:13 +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: TBH, I just bursted into a laugh attackfor easyiness: 500 Gigabytes as written on a Harddrive label are not the same as 500 Gigabytes transfered over the Network (when you know HD vendor definition: kilo == 1000 and Network vendor definition normally kilo == 1024) The latter isn't true either. Network speeds are generally in thousands of bits per second and multiples thereof. The primary users of binary multiples is the RAM industry, since it's a fundamental multiple of how RAM works. Or anything relating in any way to storage other than hard drive sizes themselves, such as the size of sectors on various media (hd/optical/etc), filesystem blocks, filesystem overall size and file size limitations, etc. Chris -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Op donderdag 26-03-2009 om 11:42 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie Morgan: Yep, its 10 mbit internet I hope you mean 10 Mbit/s, not 10 mbit/s... ;) -- Jan Claeys -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Op vrijdag 27-03-2009 om 09:57 uur [tijdzone +0800], schreef Christopher Chan: They still do not use multiples of 1000 for kilo/mega/whatever. No network device manufacturer has used anything other than 1024 for kilo/mega/giga. I suggest you go do some reading before claiming things... E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_over_twisted_pair is a good start: Ethernet over twisted pair refers to the use of a pair of copper cables, twisted around each other, for the physical layer of an Ethernet network (that is, a network in which the Ethernet protocol is used in the data link layer). There are several different standards for a copper-based physical medium. The most widely used are 10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, and 1000BASE-T (Gigabit Ethernet), running at 10 Mbit/s, 100 Mbit/s, and 1000 Mbit/s (1 Gbit/s) respectively. -- Jan Claeys -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Op donderdag 26-03-2009 om 08:13 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Stephan Hermann: TBH, I just bursted into a laugh attackfor easyiness: 500 Gigabytes as written on a Harddrive label are not the same as 500 Gigabytes transfered over the Network (when you know HD vendor definition: kilo == 1000 and Network vendor definition normally kilo == 1024) As said in another mail: (most?) network device vendors use kilo = 1000. Check for yourself...and be frustrated of different standards (which makes be lol again now ;)) The fact that (some) vendors don't follow standards doesn't mean they aren't useful. It just means they should be enforced better. We don't want to go back to the time when an inch (or a zoll in German) meant something different in every other village, don't we? -- Jan Claeys -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Olá Stephan e a todos. On Monday 23 March 2009 07:55:46 Stephan Hermann wrote: Hopefully you play all with GPT partition labels and not with msdos labels... as for msdos labels (which is the default) you won't come over 2TB (reading as disk vendor means: 1000bytes == 1KB and not 1024bytes == 1KByte) Care to explain this further, so those that down know, can learn? Thanks in advance. -- Hi, I'm BUGabundo, and I am Ubuntu (whyubuntu.com) (``-_-´´) http://LinuxNoDEI.BUGabundo.net Linux user #443786GPG key 1024D/A1784EBB http://BUGabundo.net ps. My emails tend to sound authority and aggressive. I'm sorry in advance. I'll try to be more assertive as time goes by... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Stephan Hermann wrote: as for msdos labels (which is the default) you won't come over 2TB (reading as disk vendor means: 1000bytes == 1KB and not 1024bytes == 1KByte) You should know that this isn't unclear. 1024 Bytes is a KiB, not a KB. 2TB is 2*10**12 bytes, 2TiB is 2 * 2**40 (I think :-) ) bytes. -- derek -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Derek Broughton wrote: Stephan Hermann wrote: as for msdos labels (which is the default) you won't come over 2TB (reading as disk vendor means: 1000bytes == 1KB and not 1024bytes == 1KByte) You should know that this isn't unclear. 1024 Bytes is a KiB, not a KB. 2TB is 2*10**12 bytes, 2TiB is 2 * 2**40 (I think :-) ) bytes. This assumes you buy into the SI's naming scheme and can say things like kibibyte and tebibyte without bursting into giggles or groaning in despair :-) Max. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
From an email from Colin Watson: == The partitioner has done this since November 2005. partman-partitioning (37) unstable; urgency=low [...] [ Frans Pop ] * Use gpt instead of msdos disklabel for disks larger than 2TB. [...] -- Frans Pop f...@debian.org Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:19:17 +0100 == So this should only show up when creating partitions yourself, perhaps the partitioning tools need modification as well to default to GPT if they see a disk 2TiB Some further information about this topic can be found at: http://www.carltonbale.com/2007/05/how-to-break-the-2tb-2-terabyte-file-system-limit/ http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc773223.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/storage/GPT_FAQ.mspx http://wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=576 As soon as 2TiB desktop drives become available this will begin to be a problem even for Windows desktop users. Current Windows apparently will only boot off a GPT drive if the system has UEFI instead of BIOS and then only for Windows Vista SP1 x64. It is unclear to me whether Windows 7 will allow booting from GPT without needing UEFI. It appears that currently the only consumer systems with UEFI support are Macs, Intel motherboards, and some MSI motherboards. Chris -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 15:26 +, Max Bowsher wrote: Derek Broughton wrote: Stephan Hermann wrote: as for msdos labels (which is the default) you won't come over 2TB (reading as disk vendor means: 1000bytes == 1KB and not 1024bytes == 1KByte) You should know that this isn't unclear. 1024 Bytes is a KiB, not a KB. 2TB is 2*10**12 bytes, 2TiB is 2 * 2**40 (I think :-) ) bytes. This assumes you buy into the SI's naming scheme and can say things like kibibyte and tebibyte without bursting into giggles or groaning in despair :-) It isn't SI, it's IEEE Scott -- Scott James Remnant sc...@canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Op woensdag 25-03-2009 om 16:19 uur [tijdzone +], schreef Scott James Remnant: On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 15:26 +, Max Bowsher wrote: This assumes you buy into the SI's naming scheme and can say things like kibibyte and tebibyte without bursting into giggles or groaning in despair :-) It isn't SI, it's IEEE I think it's IEEE, CIE ISO now (although I can't be sure about ISO as it's not freely available, but IIRC there is something mentioned in the table of contents that is publicly available on some national standards organisations sites). -- Jan Claeys -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Moins, On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:56:00 +0200 Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: scsi0 : 3ware 9000 Storage Controller 3w-9xxx: scsi0: Found a 3ware 9000 Storage Controller at 0xd014, IRQ: 16. 3w-9xxx: scsi0: Firmware FE9X 2.04.00.005, BIOS BE9X 2.03.01.047, Ports: 8. Vendor: 3ware Model: Logical Disk 00 Rev: 1.00 Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 00 Well, I have identical problem with 3ware storage controller, and it set caps something to 1.6 TB before I got the same output about very big device. I resolved this problem with creating two raids with 1.2 TB each. Obviously, it is a very interesting bug and would rock if someone would fix it. Hopefully you play all with GPT partition labels and not with msdos labels... as for msdos labels (which is the default) you won't come over 2TB (reading as disk vendor means: 1000bytes == 1KB and not 1024bytes == 1KByte) REegards, \sh -- Stephan '\sh' Hermann | OSS Developer Systemadministrator JID: s...@linux-server.org | http://www.sourcecode.de/ GPG ID: 0xC098EFA8| http://leonov.tv/ 3D8B 5138 0852 DA7A B83F DCCB C189 E733 C098 EFA8 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Stephan Hermann wrote: Moins, On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:56:00 +0200 Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: scsi0 : 3ware 9000 Storage Controller 3w-9xxx: scsi0: Found a 3ware 9000 Storage Controller at 0xd014, IRQ: 16. 3w-9xxx: scsi0: Firmware FE9X 2.04.00.005, BIOS BE9X 2.03.01.047, Ports: 8. Vendor: 3ware Model: Logical Disk 00 Rev: 1.00 Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 00 Well, I have identical problem with 3ware storage controller, and it set caps something to 1.6 TB before I got the same output about very big device. I resolved this problem with creating two raids with 1.2 TB each. Obviously, it is a very interesting bug and would rock if someone would fix it. Hopefully you play all with GPT partition labels and not with msdos labels... as for msdos labels (which is the default) you won't come over 2TB (reading as disk vendor means: 1000bytes == 1KB and not 1024bytes == 1KByte) REegards, \sh Oops, my bad. I had assumed when I said file system was xfs that GPT was the default. Sorry for the noise. I have been away from this for a couple of years. don -- - |Don Fisher h...@comcast.net| |865 W. Cresta Loma Dr. VOICE: (520)888-7613| |Tucson, AZ. 85704-3705 | - -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
2009/3/22 don fisher h...@comcast.net Surfaz Gemon Meme wrote: 2009/3/22 don fisher h...@comcast.net mailto:h...@comcast.net I am running ubuntu 8.10 on a Tyan workstation with 16 cores, 32GB of ram and a 3Ware 8.9TB raid 5 array. And your filesystem is...? From /var/log/messages: sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Very big device. Trying to use READ CAPACITY(16). sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: disabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Very big device. Trying to use READ CAPACITY(16). sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 17577996288 512-byte hardware sectors (834 MB) sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: disabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA sda: sda1 sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI disk 3w-9xxx: scsi0: ERROR: (0x03:0x0101): Invalid command opcode:opcode=0x4D. 3w-9xxx: scsi0: ERROR: (0x03:0x0101): Invalid command opcode:opcode=0x4D. I will try do decode the error. Who is sending the command? I am using the driver that is part of the standard kernel. That is also the one I used under Fedora. Please, send your e-mails to ubuntu-devel-discuss ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com, not only to me. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
2009/3/22 don fisher h...@comcast.net Surfaz Gemon Meme wrote: 2009/3/22 don fisher h...@comcast.net mailto:h...@comcast.net I never got to make one under ubuntu. I could not make a partition above 200GB. parted yielded same small size. I was using xfs under Fedora. sudo mkfs.xfs -b size=4k -d su=64k,sw=7 -i size=2k -l version=2 -f -s size=4k -L raid8 /dev/sda1 don I do not see my posting appearing on the list. I looked at the /var/log/messages from the Fedora system. Under Fedora, the 3ware entries appear before the probes. scsi0 : 3ware 9000 Storage Controller 3w-9xxx: scsi0: Found a 3ware 9000 Storage Controller at 0xd014, IRQ: 16. 3w-9xxx: scsi0: Firmware FE9X 2.04.00.005, BIOS BE9X 2.03.01.047, Ports: 8. Vendor: 3ware Model: Logical Disk 00 Rev: 1.00 Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 00 Resending to list... -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
scsi0 : 3ware 9000 Storage Controller 3w-9xxx: scsi0: Found a 3ware 9000 Storage Controller at 0xd014, IRQ: 16. 3w-9xxx: scsi0: Firmware FE9X 2.04.00.005, BIOS BE9X 2.03.01.047, Ports: 8. Vendor: 3ware Model: Logical Disk 00 Rev: 1.00 Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 00 Well, I have identical problem with 3ware storage controller, and it set caps something to 1.6 TB before I got the same output about very big device. I resolved this problem with creating two raids with 1.2 TB each. Obviously, it is a very interesting bug and would rock if someone would fix it. Cheers, Peter. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
Surfaz Gemon Meme wrote: 2009/3/22 don fisher h...@comcast.net mailto:h...@comcast.net Surfaz Gemon Meme wrote: 2009/3/22 don fisher h...@comcast.net mailto:h...@comcast.net mailto:h...@comcast.net mailto:h...@comcast.net I am running ubuntu 8.10 on a Tyan workstation with 16 cores, 32GB of ram and a 3Ware 8.9TB raid 5 array. And your filesystem is...? From /var/log/messages: sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Very big device. Trying to use READ CAPACITY(16). sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: disabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Very big device. Trying to use READ CAPACITY(16). sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 17577996288 512-byte hardware sectors (834 MB) sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: disabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA sda: sda1 sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI disk 3w-9xxx: scsi0: ERROR: (0x03:0x0101): Invalid command opcode:opcode=0x4D. 3w-9xxx: scsi0: ERROR: (0x03:0x0101): Invalid command opcode:opcode=0x4D. I will try do decode the error. Who is sending the command? I am using the driver that is part of the standard kernel. That is also the one I used under Fedora. Please, send your e-mails to ubuntu-devel-discuss ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com mailto:ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com, not only to me. Sorry, I was not paying attention to my addresses. Today I started over, and was able to generate file systems up to 9TB. I have discovered that the damage is done during the reboot. I was successful rebooting with 1TB and 2TB file systems. A 4TB file system failed the reboot. As I recall, it came up at 880MB. I am reformatting the raid array, which takes about 24 hours. Any suggestions on what experiments I could perform would be appreciated. In my last position I had a 5.2TB array on a 4 core Opteron system using the same series of 3ware controllers, 9500S. So I do not think it is a controller problem. don - -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
2009/3/22 don fisher h...@comcast.net I never got to make one under ubuntu. I could not make a partition above 200GB. parted yielded same small size. I was using xfs under Fedora. sudo mkfs.xfs -b size=4k -d su=64k,sw=7 -i size=2k -l version=2 -f -s size=4k -L raid8 /dev/sda1 don -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Large files under ubuntu do not appear to work
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM, don fisher h...@comcast.net wrote: Disk /dev/sda: 8999.9 GB, 834099456 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 1094179 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Rebooting under ubuntu the output is reported as: Disk /dev/sda1: 203.8 GB, 203835590656 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 24781 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x2bd0a78e Is Fedora really talking about sda (the disk) and Ubuntu talking about sda1 (a partition on the disk)? In anycase, launchpad would be the place to report a bug: https://launchpad.net/ -- John C. McCabe-Dansted PhD Student University of Western Australia -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
