On 5/14/05, Maurice Volaski wrote: > I originally had a hardware RAID with fourteen 400 GB drives of > usable capacity (Hitachi 7K400) . That's 5600 GB altogether. That's > what both fdisk and df report (filesystem was ext3). > > When I instead created an LVM2 physical volume on the device, I get > just 5.09 TB. > > Is LVM eating several hundreds gigabytes of space or is it the case > that LVM uses terminology in a strict multiply by 1024 fashion versus > everything else, which is multiplying by 1000. In that case, I guess > the drives aren't really 400 GBs. :-( > > However, it appears that parameters passed to LVM commands are > interpreted using x1000, not x1024. > > other keywords: gigabinarybytes, gibibytes, Gi, terabinarybytes, tebibytes, Ti. > -- > > Maurice Volaski, mvolaski@aecom.yu.edu > Computing Support, Rose F. Kennedy Center > Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University As Maurice implies NIST is making an effort (however small) to standardize GB as 1000 * 1000 * 1000 bytes. See http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html So per NIST: GB = Gigabyte = 1,000 * 1,000 * 1,000 Bytes GiB = Gibibyte = 1,024 * 1,024 * 1,024 Bytes Or for Maurice TB vs. TiB BTW, the difference between TB and TiB is almost 10% so this has a very user observable effect and would explain Maurice's discrepancy. So if I understand Maurice's question, it becomes: "Is LVM reporting TiB units with a TB designation?" Greg -- Greg Freemyer The Norcross Group Forensics for the 21st Century _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
