On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:49:42AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 05:37:04PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:24:03PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>when using "df -h" the output will use the largest unit that doesn't
>have a leading 0. This often results in quite imprecise output, e.g.
>1.1T or 1.8G. It would be nice if instead it cout use the smallest
>unit that use 4 or less characters (maybe even 5 if a "." is involved).
I'm struggling to think of a use case that requires 4 digits of precision on
a terabyte filesystem. If you need to know the exact size, then get the size
in bytes. Otherwise, it's probably close enough.
Mike Stone
4 chars for the number, which would only be 1-2 digits of precision.
As in 11.7G instead of 12G or 1750M instead of 1.8G. 4 digits of
precision would indeed be too much.
We already have at least two digits of precision and often three. Your
1750M *is* 4 digits of precision. And you said "maybe even 5 if a . is
involved". But I'll restate to avoid the quibble: I'm struggling to
think of a use case that requires 3 digits of precision on a terabyte
filesystem. If you need to know the exact size, then get the size in
bytes. Otherwise, it's probably close enough.
ike stone
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
