On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Neil Brown wrote: > > mdadm --detail gives a bogus "Array Size". Also, the "human_size" value is > > calculated wrong since both "Array Size" and "Device Size" are in 1024 byte > > units already and not 1000 byte units. > > The "human_size" is given as MiB or GiB (Mebibytes or Gibibytes) and > so a multiples if 2^20 or 2^30. > Presumably you were expecting SI Megabytes or Gigabytes (10^6, 10^9), > which I guess we could do as well. I've been thinking about this and I don't see the purpose in using the GiB value. I honestly don't know if it's a commonly used term or not. I don't hear it used very often in the US, but I know that Linux has a worldwide user base. So slap me if I'm being ignorant. I first came across the "human readable" forms when looking up some reference information for exabytes and petabytes while writing about journaling file systems and kernel and VFS limits. But I never really saw the point of Gib/Mib versus GB/MB, except that sometimes it's useful to discuss things using the same numerical base. Anyway, the short of it is that I vote for things to be represented in gigabytes, since that's what hard drive makers use when they sell hard drives. I can't come up with a simpler argument than that. P.S.: I came across this funny tirade when looking around for info about Gibibytes (that sure is hard to type). http://www.uglx.org/gibi.html --- Derek Vadala, derek@cynicism.com, http://www.cynicism.com/~derek - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
