1 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 2:04 PM Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> Part. # Size Partition Type Partition Name |
5 |
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- |
6 |
>> 1007.0 KiB free space |
7 |
>> 1 9.1 TiB Linux filesystem 10Tb |
8 |
>> 1007.5 KiB free space |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> I'm not sure why there seems to be two alignment spots. Is that |
12 |
>> normal? Already, there is almost 1TB lost somewhere. |
13 |
> 10 TB = 9.09495 TiB. You aren't missing much of anything. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> And no, I don't want to get into a religious war over base 2 vs base |
16 |
> 10, and why it would be confusing if a tape that could store 10MB/m |
17 |
> didn't store 10kB/mm but instead stored 10.24 kB/mm. |
18 |
> |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
Well, I realize it would be less than advertised but I just want to |
22 |
maximize it as much as I can. I found the -m option for the file system |
23 |
a good while back and it saves a lot on these larger drives. Since this |
24 |
is a external drive, no point in reserving any root space, since root |
25 |
will likely never access it after the file system is put on it. |
26 |
|
27 |
Nice to know it is a conversion thing going on tho. ;-) |
28 |
|
29 |
Dale |
30 |
|
31 |
:-) :-) |