From: jeff.mery@ni.com [mailto:jeff.mery@ni.com]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:35 PM To: Darren
Dunham Cc: owner-toasters@mathworks.com;
toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: Aggregate size
question
Back in the day I seem to remember
that NetApp "right-sized" all of their disks. This was done to account for
small differences in drive capacities from different drive manufacturers.
For example, a 36GB drive was "right-sized" to 34.5GB or there
about.
Is it possible that what
we're seeing here is the effect of right-sizing the disks? Does NetApp
still do this (Bueller....Bueller)?
Jeff Mery - MCSE, MCP National
Instruments
------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Allow
me to extol the virtues of the Net Fairy, and of all the fantastic dorks that
make the nice packets go from here to there. Amen." TB - Penny
Arcade -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Dunham
<ddunham@taos.com> Sent
by: owner-toasters@mathworks.com
02/24/2006 11:45 AM
To
toasters@mathworks.com
cc
Subject
Re: Aggregate size
question
> we have the same drives as you have, those so
called '144 GB' ones :-) When performing a sysconfig -r the filer showed me
those 137 GB and i, young as i am, thought that the filer already made the
conversion to binary for me. By rule of thumb this number seemed to be correct
to me. > > Well with a drive capacity of 134 i really get close to
what i am locking for! >
Yep. Looks like 137 is not a pure
"binary Gigabyte" unit for them, but a hybrid of
binary/decimal.
Reported size 144GB => 1.44 * 10^11 bytes
In
units of 10 ^ 9 ( 1 billion ) =>
144 10^6 * 2^10 (1 million KiB) => 140.6 10^3 * 2^20 (1000 MiB)
=> 137.3 2^30 (1 GiB)
=> 134.1
-- Darren Dunham
ddunham@taos.com Senior Technical Consultant TAOS
http://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr
Pepper?
San Francisco, CA bay area
< This line left intentionally blank to confuse you.
>