Re: RAID Sizes (was Re: Why do people in the UK put a u in the word color?)
On Sat, 2006-04-15 at 15:54 -0700, Paul Scott wrote:
> hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 12:27:35PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 2006-04-15 at 06:30 -0400, hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 10:25:28AM +0100, Wulfy wrote:
> >>> (snip)
> >>> because the sizes are measured in blocks originally, and a block is 1024
> >>> bytes, which is one KiB but 1.024 KB.
> >>>
> >> Sectors are 512 bytes, and blocks (on hard disks) are typically
> >> 4096 bytes (but that's determined when you format the partition,
> >> and is determined at run-time).
> >>
> >
> > But I believe the common filesystems use 1024-byte blocks anyway.
> > At least space measurements seem to be done in blocks.
> > lthough a few years ago I recall that both 512- and 1024 blocks were in
> > use -- very confusing.
> >
> Block sizes for several common file systems (ext2, ntfs, fat32) use
> blocks whose sizes are multiples of 512 or 1024. 4096 is common for a
> reasonable sized partitions.
And of course it always depends on disk capacity...
A floppy drive has a 512 byte block, and MS-DOS formatted *old*
HDDs with a 1024 byte sector size.
> Powers of two are fairly obvious from a
> hardware point of view.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
"Oh, great altar of passive entertainment, bestow upon me thy
discordant images at such speed as to render linear thought
impossible"
Calvin, regarding TV
Reply to: