Re: SATA problem

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ax.ldc.upenn.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20050330141449.X63149@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <424b0280$0$719$415eb37d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.64.125.135
X-Trace: 1112212097 crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org 719 202.64.125.135
Xref: crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org dragonfly.users:2578

Jason M. Leonard wrote:


> 
> 1G == 1000M for marketing purposes is quite true; that is the published 
> capacity.  The reserved space you are talking about is the difference 
> betwen the 117G of theoretical space I was referring to and the 114G of 
> available space referred to earlier by the original poster and yourself.
> 
> I wasn't trying to say you were wrong before; I was just addiing 
> information :)
> 

No argument.  You can also get a less confusing
idea than 'G', marketing or otherwise, by
multiplying by 512 bytes the number of blocks
on the label.

NOV 2001 IBM Deskstar IC35L060AVER07-0
  (that just outlived its 1 yr warranty by 2+ years)

LBA: 120,103,200 X 512 = 61,492,838,400  bytes

Also marked: '61.5 GB'

. .. not that it matters a lot - but this number
might be more easily compared with what you
see when slicing and partitioning.

And, of course, depending on areal density,
platter count, etc. the minimum increment you can adjust
a split by is going to be somewhere upwards of 7 MB on
most modern drives.

To *further* complicate matters, OS X takes a chunk
for its own use outside of, but adjacent to/in between
each usable slice/partition, and 'hides' these from
normal sight.

Sure hope Apple adopts a newer UFS variant, as
the one they have now is an odd duck, and
hfs+ sucks canal water up its snorkel.

;-)

Bill