Daniel wrote:
The larger the number of cyls for the device, the worse the
ratio gets :(.
That's not true: CDL uses track0 and track1 for internal purposes, the
rest (number of 4k blocks that fit on a track multiplied with amount of
tracks) is available for partitions. For people who do not like
Carsten Otte wrote:
Daniel wrote:
The larger the number of cyls for the device, the worse the
ratio gets :(.
That's not true: CDL uses track0 and track1 for internal purposes, the
rest (number of 4k blocks that fit on a track multiplied with amount
of
tracks) is available for partitions.
I assume that other disk architectures simply don't report the amount of
waster space per track because it isn't accessible (e.g., on SCSI disk).
The very real benefits of being able to write variable-length blocks on
a disk is something the Unix crowd hasn't discovered, I guess.
Romney
On Thu,
of usable space on drives with 3.5 inch platters. It
makes it hard to do the mainframe style track and cylinder allocation though.
-Original Message-
From: Romney White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Format disk and mount FS
We have formated a mini disk of 285 Cylinders with :
dasdfmt -b 4096 -n 0104
dev2:/mnt# less /proc/dasd/devices
0104(ECKD) at ( 94: 16) is dasde : active at blocksize: 4096,
51300
blocks, 200 MB
Going over the numbers, the overhead from dasdfmt is startling. At
849,960 bytes a
and mount FS : lost space
We have formated a mini disk of 285 Cylinders with :
dasdfmt -b 4096 -n 0104
dev2:/mnt# less /proc/dasd/devices
0104(ECKD) at ( 94: 16) is dasde : active at blocksize: 4096,
51300
blocks, 200 MB
Going over the numbers, the overhead from dasdfmt is startling
On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 08:54, Davis, Larry wrote:
I know this has been discussed, but what was the final outcome. Should we
use EXT2 or EXT3 block size 1024 or 4096 for space allocation on zlinux
Depends. 1K blocks will be slower but less wasteful of space if you
have lots of files smaller than
a caveat in our POC to discuss future
enhancements, such as FCP and SCSI drives.
A new and changing world ahead us.
Thanks Larry
-Original Message-
From: Adam Thornton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 10:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Format disk and mount FS
Adam wrote:
Depends. 1K blocks will be slower but less wasteful
of space if you have lots of files smaller than 4K.
For SCSI devices, I would agree with you. For eckd
devices, the overhead on 1K blocks is tremendous so
what you make up from small files is lost to eckd
overhead. Also, for eckd
Add information , new version, sorry and thanks for your answer
hi list,
We have formated a mini disk of 285 Cylinders with :
dasdfmt -b 4096 -n 0104
dev2:/mnt# less /proc/dasd/devices
0104(ECKD) at ( 94: 16) is dasde : active at blocksize: 4096, 51300
blocks, 200 MB
We have 200 MB
On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 09:45, Raphael Petitjean wrote:
Why we have lost 26 MB ?
6MB appears to have gone, well, I don't know where; formatting probably
reduced the capacity somewhat. The 17M in use is mostly your ext3
journal, and 167+17 = 184, so 10M, or 5%, is reserved for root's use.
This is
11 matches
Mail list logo
