On Wednesday March 13, derek@cynicism.com wrote: > 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. The thing is that when you buy a disk drive from seagate or quantum or whatever, they tell you how many Gigabyte (as in 1,000,000,000 bytes) it is, but when you look at the filesystem with "df -h" it will tell you how many Gibibytes it is (as in 0x4000,0000 == 1,073,741,824 bytes). So which standard should we follow? Probably both. NeilBrown "That's the great thing about standards, There are so many to choose from!" - 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
