From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.110.11]) by int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7BHIKAJ021007 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:18:20 -0400 Received: from ps536.phatservers.com (ps536.phatservers.com [216.17.105.202]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7BHIBOr002352 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:18:12 -0400 Received: from r74-192-76-102.vctrcmta01.vctatx.tl.dh.suddenlink.net ([74.192.76.102] helo=raydesk1.bettercgi.com) by ps536.phatservers.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1OjEwJ-0000j1-RI for linux-lvm@redhat.com; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:18:08 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:19:50 -0500 From: Ray Morris References: <1281507031.21952.1@raydesk1.bettercgi.com> In-Reply-To: (from rpnabar@gmail.com on Wed Aug 11 12:03:39 2010) Message-Id: <1281547190.5708.0@raydesk1.bettercgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] calculating free capacity from pvdisplay and lvdisplay Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; delsp="Yes"; format="Flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development > Makes sense! The only reason that I was confused was why 3 of my PV's > say "yes (but full)" and the other three not. How does one explain > that? > > 1.63x3=4.89 still less than 8.6. > > Has the VG spanned across the first 3 PVs fully and then utilized the > remaining 3 partially? Pretty much. See man (8) lvm, --alloc option -- Ray Morris support@bettercgi.com Strongbox - The next generation in site security: http://www.bettercgi.com/strongbox/ Throttlebox - Intelligent Bandwidth Control http://www.bettercgi.com/throttlebox/ Strongbox / Throttlebox affiliate program: http://www.bettercgi.com/affiliates/user/register.php On 08/11/2010 12:03:39 PM, Rahul Nabar wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Ray Morris > wrote: > > Thanks Giorgio and Ray! That helps! > > > > df shows that your LVs take up 8.6TB: 6TB + 600 GB + 2 TB. > > Therefore, you are using 8.6TB of disk space for those LVs. > > Some of the space WITHIN each LV might not be used for files, > > but it has been dedicated to that LV. > > Makes sense! The only reason that I was confused was why 3 of my PV's > say "yes (but full)" and the other three not. How does one explain > that? > > 1.63x3=4.89 still less than 8.6. > > Has the VG spanned across the first 3 PVs fully and then utilized the > remaining 3 partially? > > > > I'm not good at explaining things, so sometimes I try explaining > three > > different ways. �I have six cereal boxes, each half empty. �I put > the > > boxes in a bag. �The bag is now full. �The cereal boxes may not be > full, > > but they fill up the bag. �The cereal boxes are your half empty LVs > and > > the bag is your drives. > > Food based analogies are always good! :) > > Giorgio: > > The vgs output is exactly as you say: > > [root@eustorage ~]# vgs > VG #PV #LV #SN Attr VSize VFree > euclid_highperf_storage 6 3 0 wz--n- 9.80T 1.22T > > -- > Rahul > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > >