> hello Gurus; > > In Sun Info Doc 72063, it clearly says that Solaris 9 > SVM metadbs are > 8192 blocks in size while earlier version of SDS have > metadb which are > 1034 blocks in size. > > I am guessing the incorrect terminology was used? > > It should be 8192 sectors and 1034 sectors instead of > 8192 blocks and > 1034 blocks?
That's the same to me. Virtually every storage computation I know of assumes a disk "block" is 512bytes. > ufs blocks are default 8K in size. A 8192 block size > would = 8k * 8192 = > 64 Mbyte!! These are disk blocks. They're outside of any filesystem, so UFS isn't involved here. > The above cannot be because Sun formal recommendation > for the metadb > slice is only 32 Mbytes! (256 Mbytes is now defunct) > > But metadb reside on non ufs slices so I am guesing > the block size refer > to sector sizes (512 bytes). > > Thus one metadb would be 8192 * 512 bytes = 4k? By default, yes. -- Darren This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ ufs-discuss mailing list [email protected]
