Re: macports' hardlinks and time machine backups

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Peter West wrote: When I see MiB, I think million bytes. Is this wrong? Yes; it's 1024*1024. Think of powers of 2. -- Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."

Re: macports' hardlinks and time machine backups

To a rabid base2 fanatic, the "10" in 2^10 is repulsively decimal. What is it? 2^3 + 2 = 2^(2+1) + 2 or 2^(2^2^0 + 2^0) + 2^2^0 if you prefer. Ugh. Aren't there numerical notations that use a comma to chunk digits 4 at a time? And in the binary world we use 10?! I would have thought

Re: macports' hardlinks and time machine backups

Thanks Ryan. That sucks, quite apart from the woeful UX of MiB. Mebibyte? Really? Kibibyte? Gibibyte? It sounds like a toddler demanding a smartphone. "Oh how we laughed when people took us seriously!” -- Peter West p...@pbw.id.au “My soul magnifies the Lord…” > On 15 Aug 2017, at 8:41 pm,

Re: macports' hardlinks and time machine backups

When I see MiB, I think million bytes. Is this wrong? One of the disk manufacturers was taken to court over advertising a device with n gigabytes of storage, meaning n*1,000,000,000 bytes. The buyer assumed that a Gb was 1K*1K*1K bytes, where 1K was 1024. The court agreed with the plaintiff.

Re: macports' hardlinks and time machine backups

> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Rainer Müller wrote: > >> Finder on macOS uses base 10, so "GB" stands for 1000*1000*1000 Bytes. du(1) >> uses base 2, so "G" means 1024*1024*1024 Bytes. > > It's for this reason that I've always referred to the base-10 usage as > "marketing MB", because the numbers are

Re: macports' hardlinks and time machine backups

On 14 Aug 2017, at 14:16, Rainer Müller wrote: > Finder on macOS uses base 10 Thanks. Somehow I thought it had been reverted without ever verifying. Oh well…

Re: macports' hardlinks and time machine backups

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Rainer Müller wrote: Finder on macOS uses base 10, so "GB" stands for 1000*1000*1000 Bytes. du(1) uses base 2, so "G" means 1024*1024*1024 Bytes. It's for this reason that I've always referred to the base-10 usage as "marketing MB", because the numbers are bigger. There

Re: macports' hardlinks and time machine backups

Call du with --si and you should get numbers that match. —Mark ___ Mark E. Anderson On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Rainer Müller wrote: > On 08/13/2017 07:57 PM, db wrote: > > On 13 Aug 2017, at 18:46, Clemens Lang

Re: macports' hardlinks and time machine backups

On 08/13/2017 07:57 PM, db wrote: > On 13 Aug 2017, at 18:46, Clemens Lang wrote: >> MacPorts no longer uses hardlinks. We now keep the pristine state in >> archives in /opt/local/var/macports/software instead of hardlinking >> everything from there. > > Not even for other

Re: macports' hardlinks and time machine backups

On 13 Aug 2017, at 18:46, Clemens Lang wrote: > MacPorts no longer uses hardlinks. We now keep the pristine state in archives > in /opt/local/var/macports/software instead of hardlinking everything from > there. Not even for other parts that I'm not aware of, that would

Re: macports' hardlinks and time machine backups

Hi, - On 13 Aug, 2017, at 14:28, db iams...@gmail.com wrote: > I perchance stumbled upon this post [1] and couldn't find what's the actual > state. > > In my system du reports ~8.8G for my prefix while Finder ~9.4. > > What's changed from then? MacPorts no longer uses hardlinks. We now

macports' hardlinks and time machine backups

I perchance stumbled upon this post [1] and couldn't find what's the actual state. In my system du reports ~8.8G for my prefix while Finder ~9.4. What's changed from then? [1] https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2010-May/011938.html