* [linux-lvm] physical volume smaller than partition? @ 2006-04-18 15:12 Martin Gombac 2006-04-18 18:00 ` Dieter Stüken 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Martin Gombac @ 2006-04-18 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] physical volume smaller than partition? 2006-04-18 15:12 [linux-lvm] physical volume smaller than partition? Martin Gombac @ 2006-04-18 18:00 ` Dieter Stüken 2006-04-18 18:26 ` John Cassidy 2006-04-18 20:30 ` Martin Gombac 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Dieter Stüken @ 2006-04-18 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: LVM general discussion and development 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] physical volume smaller than partition? 2006-04-18 18:00 ` Dieter Stüken @ 2006-04-18 18:26 ` John Cassidy 2006-04-18 20:30 ` Martin Gombac 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: John Cassidy @ 2006-04-18 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: LVM general discussion and development 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] physical volume smaller than partition? 2006-04-18 18:00 ` Dieter Stüken 2006-04-18 18:26 ` John Cassidy @ 2006-04-18 20:30 ` Martin Gombac 2006-04-18 20:39 ` Shane Hathaway 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Martin Gombac @ 2006-04-18 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dieter Stüken; +Cc: LVM general discussion and development 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] physical volume smaller than partition? 2006-04-18 20:30 ` Martin Gombac @ 2006-04-18 20:39 ` Shane Hathaway 2006-04-18 23:18 ` David Brown 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Shane Hathaway @ 2006-04-18 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: LVM general discussion and development; +Cc: Dieter Stüken 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] physical volume smaller than partition? 2006-04-18 20:39 ` Shane Hathaway @ 2006-04-18 23:18 ` David Brown 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: David Brown @ 2006-04-18 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: LVM general discussion and development; +Cc: Dieter Stüken 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-04-18 23:18 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2006-04-18 15:12 [linux-lvm] physical volume smaller than partition? Martin Gombac 2006-04-18 18:00 ` Dieter Stüken 2006-04-18 18:26 ` John Cassidy 2006-04-18 20:30 ` Martin Gombac 2006-04-18 20:39 ` Shane Hathaway 2006-04-18 23:18 ` David Brown
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).