On 2014-04-08 19:46, Timothy Coalson wrote:
(I am sometimes confused by "b" vs. "B" in such decimal vs. binary
notations, so maybe that should have been written another way around)
Sorry, this is off topic, but this bothers me a little: "b" means bit, not
1024-flavored SI (as in 6Gbps SATA).
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
>
> 1024 vs 1000 is another way around: a 3TB disk is
> 3 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 = 2.72Tb or
> 3 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 = 2793.97Gb
>
> Times 9, and that amounts to 24.55Tb or 25145.7Gb
>
> (I am sometimes confused by
Thanks!
Couldn't have been explained any clearer.
> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:03:37 +0200
> From: jimkli...@cos.ru
> To: openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Formula raidz storage space caclulation
>
> On 2014-04-08 17:05, Randy S wro
On 2014-04-08 17:05, Randy S wrote:
Hi,
yes even if you incorporate the kilo=1024
example:
I filled in the example below on the site:
RAID Mode: z1
Disk Size: 3 tb
Quantity of Disks: 10
RAID-Z
*Raw Storage: 30.0 TB / 3.0 GB
*Usable Storage: 24.6 TB / 25145.7 GB
RAID-Z uses one disk for Pari
Hi,
"Randy S" írta 2014-04-08 17:05-kor:
> RAID-Z
> *Raw Storage: 30.0 TB / 3.0 GB
> *Usable Storage: 24.6 TB / 25145.7 GB
> RAID-Z uses one disk for Parity much like RAID5 and requires at least three
> drives to be used.
> *Usable storage is the actual post-format amount where kilo = 1024
t; From: pasz...@linux.gyakg.u-szeged.hu
> > To: openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org
> > Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Formula raidz storage space
> caclulation
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > "Randy S" írta 2014-04-08 16:16-kor:
> > > The information
something in their calculations.
Maybe someone can explain or show me where my calculation is going wrong?
Thanx
R
> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 16:32:23 +0200
> From: pasz...@linux.gyakg.u-szeged.hu
> To: openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Formula r
Hi,
"Randy S" írta 2014-04-08 16:16-kor:
> The information that I have about the formula to use is (n-1) x storage space
> per disk
> n=number of disks
> 1=is de disk used for parity in a raidz1 configuration.
> In the case of Raidz2 , this number would be 2 (n-2) x space.
>
> My question is:
The information that I have about the formula to use is (n-1) x storage space
per disk
n=number of disks
1=is de disk used for parity in a raidz1 configuration.
In the case of Raidz2 , this number would be 2 (n-2) x space.
My question is: is this formula correct?
Reason, my outcome always differ
