[linux-lvm] physical volume smaller than partition?

[linux-lvm] physical volume smaller than partition?

[Martin Gombac]

Hi there.

i just did pvcreate on this partition:
sda4	Primary	Linux LVM 	298067.70MB=291.08..GB (from cfdisk)

like this:
levinja ~ # pvcreate /dev/sda4
   Physical volume "/dev/sda4" successfully created

then i took a look at it's size:
levinja ~ # pvdisplay
   --- NEW Physical volume ---
   PV Name               /dev/sda4
   VG Name
   PV Size               277.60 GB
   Allocatable           NO
   PE Size (KByte)       0
   Total PE              0
   Free PE               0
   Allocated PE          0
   PV UUID               Sek0cg-xmPI-xQml-9JE1-19VQ-Ht8I-P4PSEk

and noticed 277.60 GB != 291.08..GB. So my question is where did the  
rest of disk space went to?

Thanx for reply.
Martin

Re: [linux-lvm] physical volume smaller than partition?

[Dieter Stüken]

Martin Gombac wrote
> and noticed 277.60 GB != 291.08..GB. So my question is where did the 
> rest of disk space went to?

it depends on counting "kilo" as 1000 or 1024.
This happens even twice for kb -> mb -> gb.

Thus:  277.60 * 1.024 * 1.024 = 291.08

Memory capacity is calculated using 1024 where as disk manufacturer
like using 1000, as this results in bigger numbers
(but does not result in more space :-(

Dieter.

Re: [linux-lvm] physical volume smaller than partition?

[John Cassidy]

http://www.europeunited.org





Was denkst Du??


> Martin Gombac wrote
>> and noticed 277.60 GB != 291.08..GB. So my question is where did the
>> rest of disk space went to?
>
> it depends on counting "kilo" as 1000 or 1024.
> This happens even twice for kb -> mb -> gb.
>
> Thus:  277.60 * 1.024 * 1.024 = 291.08
>
> Memory capacity is calculated using 1024 where as disk manufacturer
> like using 1000, as this results in bigger numbers
> (but does not result in more space :-(
>
> Dieter.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>


John Cassidy (Dipl.-Ingr.)

Berninastrasse 9

8057 Zuerich

Europe

Telephone: +41 (0) 43 300 4602

Mobile:    +41 (0) 79 207 3268

HTTP: www.JDCassidy.net / www.Eurological.eu

Re: [linux-lvm] physical volume smaller than partition?

[Martin Gombac]

Tnx. for explanation.
I didn't think that cfdisk uses 1000 instead of 1024.

Regards,
Martin

On 2006.4.18, at 20:00, Dieter St�ken wrote:

> Martin Gombac wrote
>> and noticed 277.60 GB != 291.08..GB. So my question is where did  
>> the rest of disk space went to?
>
> it depends on counting "kilo" as 1000 or 1024.
> This happens even twice for kb -> mb -> gb.
>
> Thus:  277.60 * 1.024 * 1.024 = 291.08
>
> Memory capacity is calculated using 1024 where as disk manufacturer
> like using 1000, as this results in bigger numbers
> (but does not result in more space :-(
>
> Dieter.

Re: [linux-lvm] physical volume smaller than partition?

[Shane Hathaway]

Martin Gombac wrote:
> Tnx. for explanation.
> I didn't think that cfdisk uses 1000 instead of 1024.

FYI: the official meaning of kilobyte is 1000 bytes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobyte
http://lwn.net/2002/0103/a/esr-kibi.php3

Interestingly, this means drive manufacturers are not misleading 
consumers after all.

Shane

Re: [linux-lvm] physical volume smaller than partition?

[David Brown]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 02:39:42PM -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote:

> Interestingly, this means drive manufacturers are not misleading 
> consumers after all.

It is still common to round and even just blatantly exaggerate.

I used to have a "640MB" MO drive from Fujitsu.  Total capacity was about
635 million bytes, or about 605 MiB.

Dave