On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Love wrote: > Mitch Collinsworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Love wrote: > > > >> Mitch Collinsworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > We could also just take the size from vos > >> > examine, but some quick experiments with this showed inacuracies as > >> > large as 4%, which we feel is unacceptable. > >> > >> In what direction was it wrong ? > > > > Not consistent. (!) > > You looked at the same volume clone (backup) ? You are sure the you just > did have the quota bug triggered volumes confusing you ?
Yes, we compared vos exam of the backup volume .vs. a vos dump of the backup volume. I'm afraid I don't know what the quota bug is. > >> Did you the overhead of file/directory-metadata stored in the dump (number > >> of files are stored in volintInfo.files) > > > > The inaccuracy I'm talking about here is just the difference observed > > between the size shown in vos examine and the actual true size of a > > vos dump. Our estimator utility gets it exactly right every time, by > > looking at the actual metadata stored in the volume. > > I don't think the dump should be smaller the the quota information, if it > is, something else is wrong. Ok. I'll agree with that. -Mitch _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
