Eric,
in my understanding ( which I learned from more qualified people
but I may be mistaken anyway ), whenever we discuss a transfer rate
like x Mb/s, y GB/s or z PB/d, the M, G, T or P refers to the
frequency and not to the data.
1 MB/s means transfer bytes at 1 MHz, NOT transfer megabytes
Carson Gaspar wrote:
Not quite.
11 x 10^12 =~ 10.004 x (1024^4).
So, the 'zpool list' is right on, at 10T available.
Duh, I was doing GiB math (y = x * 10^9 / 2^20), not TiB math (y = x *
10^12 / 2^40).
Thanks for the correction.
You're welcome. :-)
On a not-completely-on-topic
On 3/16/2010 23:21, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 3/16/2010 8:29 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On 3/16/2010 17:45, Erik Trimble wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Tue, March 16, 2010 14:59, Erik Trimble wrote:
Has there been a consideration by anyone to do a class-action lawsuit
for false
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:34 AM, David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net wrote:
On 3/16/2010 23:21, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 3/16/2010 8:29 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On 3/16/2010 17:45, Erik Trimble wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Tue, March 16, 2010 14:59, Erik Trimble wrote:
Has there
IMHO, what matters is that pretty much everything from the disk controller
to the CPU and network interface is advertised in power-of-2 terms and disks
sit alone using power-of-10. And students are taught that computers work
with bits and so everything is a power of 2.
That is simply not true:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com wrote:
IMHO, what matters is that pretty much everything from the disk controller
to the CPU and network interface is advertised in power-of-2 terms and disks
sit alone using power-of-10. And students are taught that
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:23 AM, casper@sun.com wrote:
IMHO, what matters is that pretty much everything from the disk controller
to the CPU and network interface is advertised in power-of-2 terms and
disks
sit alone using power-of-10. And students are taught that computers work
with
On 15 Mar 2010, at 23:03, Tonmaus wrote:
Hi Cindy,
trying to reproduce this
For a RAIDZ pool, the zpool list command identifies
the inflated space
for the storage pool, which is the physical available
space without an
accounting for redundancy overhead.
The zfs list command identifies how
Carson Gaspar wrote:
Not quite.
11 x 10^12 =~ 10.004 x (1024^4).
So, the 'zpool list' is right on, at 10T available.
Duh, I was doing GiB math (y = x * 10^9 / 2^20), not TiB math (y = x *
10^12 / 2^40).
Thanks for the correction.
You're welcome. :-)
On a not-completely-on-topic note:
On Tue, March 16, 2010 14:59, Erik Trimble wrote:
Has there been a consideration by anyone to do a class-action lawsuit
for false advertising on this? I know they now have to include the 1GB
= 1,000,000,000 bytes thing in their specs and somewhere on the box,
but just because I say 1 L =
Has there been a consideration by anyone to do a
class-action lawsuit
for false advertising on this? I know they now have
to include the 1GB
= 1,000,000,000 bytes thing in their specs and
somewhere on the box,
but just because I say 1 L = 0.9 metric liters
somewhere on the box,
it
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Tue, March 16, 2010 14:59, Erik Trimble wrote:
Has there been a consideration by anyone to do a class-action lawsuit
for false advertising on this? I know they now have to include the 1GB
= 1,000,000,000 bytes thing in their specs and somewhere on the box,
but
Tonmaus wrote:
Has there been a consideration by anyone to do a
class-action lawsuit
for false advertising on this? I know they now have
to include the 1GB
= 1,000,000,000 bytes thing in their specs and
somewhere on the box,
but just because I say 1 L = 0.9 metric liters
somewhere on the
Erik Trimble wrote:
Tonmaus wrote:
Has there been a consideration by anyone to do a
class-action lawsuit for false advertising on this? I know they now
have
to include the 1GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes thing in their specs and
somewhere on the box, but just because I say 1 L = 0.9 metric liters
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@sun.com wrote:
Up until 5 years ago (or so), GigaByte meant a power of 2 to EVERYONE, not
just us techies. I would hardly call 40+ years of using the various
giga/mega/kilo prefixes as a power of 2 in computer science as
The reason why there is not more uproar is that cost per data unit is dwindling
while the gap resulting from this marketing trick is increasing. I remember a
case a German broadcaster filed against a system integrator in the age of the 4
GB SCSI drive. This was in the mid-90s.
Regards,
Eric,
careful:
Am 16.03.2010 23:45, schrieb Erik Trimble:
Up until 5 years ago (or so), GigaByte meant a power of 2 to EVERYONE,
not just us techies. I would hardly call 40+ years of using the various
giga/mega/kilo prefixes as a power of 2 in computer science as
non-authoritative.
How long
On 3/16/2010 17:45, Erik Trimble wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Tue, March 16, 2010 14:59, Erik Trimble wrote:
Has there been a consideration by anyone to do a class-action lawsuit
for false advertising on this? I know they now have to include the
1GB
= 1,000,000,000 bytes thing in
On 3/16/2010 4:23 PM, Roland Rambau wrote:
Eric,
careful:
Am 16.03.2010 23:45, schrieb Erik Trimble:
Up until 5 years ago (or so), GigaByte meant a power of 2 to EVERYONE,
not just us techies. I would hardly call 40+ years of using the various
giga/mega/kilo prefixes as a power of 2 in
On 3/16/2010 8:29 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On 3/16/2010 17:45, Erik Trimble wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Tue, March 16, 2010 14:59, Erik Trimble wrote:
Has there been a consideration by anyone to do a class-action lawsuit
for false advertising on this? I know they now have to
Sorry if this is too basic -
So I have a single zpool in addition to the rpool, called xpool.
NAMESIZE USED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT
rpool 136G 109G 27.5G79% ONLINE -
xpool 408G 171G 237G42% ONLINE -
I have 408 in the pool, am using 171 leaving me 237 GB.
Hi Michael,
For a RAIDZ pool, the zpool list command identifies the inflated space
for the storage pool, which is the physical available space without an
accounting for redundancy overhead.
The zfs list command identifies how much actual pool space is available
to the file systems.
See the
Hi Cindy,
trying to reproduce this
For a RAIDZ pool, the zpool list command identifies
the inflated space
for the storage pool, which is the physical available
space without an
accounting for redundancy overhead.
The zfs list command identifies how much actual pool
space is available
Tonmaus wrote:
I am lacking 1 TB on my pool:
u...@filemeister:~$ zpool list daten NAMESIZE ALLOC FREE
CAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT daten10T 3,71T 6,29T37% 1.00x
ONLINE - u...@filemeister:~$ zpool status daten pool: daten state:
ONLINE scrub: none requested config:
NAME
On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 15:03 -0700, Tonmaus wrote:
Hi Cindy,
trying to reproduce this
For a RAIDZ pool, the zpool list command identifies
the inflated space
for the storage pool, which is the physical available
space without an
accounting for redundancy overhead.
The zfs list
On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 15:40 -0700, Carson Gaspar wrote:
Tonmaus wrote:
I am lacking 1 TB on my pool:
u...@filemeister:~$ zpool list daten NAMESIZE ALLOC FREE
CAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT daten10T 3,71T 6,29T37% 1.00x
ONLINE - u...@filemeister:~$ zpool status daten
My guess is unit conversion and rounding. Your pool
has 11 base 10 TB,
which is 10.2445 base 2 TiB.
Likewise your fs has 9 base 10 TB, which is 8.3819
base 2 TiB.
Not quite.
11 x 10^12 =~ 10.004 x (1024^4).
So, the 'zpool list' is right on, at 10T available.
Duh! I completely
Someone wrote (I haven't seen the mail, only the unattributed quote):
My guess is unit conversion and rounding. Your pool
has 11 base 10 TB,
which is 10.2445 base 2 TiB.
Likewise your fs has 9 base 10 TB, which is 8.3819
base 2 TiB.
Not quite.
11 x 10^12 =~ 10.004 x (1024^4).
So,
28 matches
Mail list logo
