On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:23 AM, 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 bits and
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Giovanni Tirloni 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 bit
>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 tru
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:34 AM, David Dyer-Bennet 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:
>>>
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 advertisin
>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
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 megabyte
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 inclu
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 comput
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 th
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
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,
Tonmaus
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Erik Trimble 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
> non-authoritative. In fact,
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 liter
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
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
> 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 b
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 "
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 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
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, th
> 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!
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 sta
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.
> >
>
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
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 ava
Yeah, this threw me. A 3 disk RAID-Z2 doesn't make sense, because at a
redundancy level, RAID-Z2 looks like RAID 6. That is, there are 2 levels of
parity for the data. Out of 3 disks, the equivalent of 2 disks will be used
to
store redundancy (parity) data and only 1 disk equivalent will store
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 ex
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.
The
29 matches
Mail list logo
