Not showing actual disk size

Not sure if a topic already exist, I could not find one.

Is there any reason for why UnRAID are not showing actual disk size?

 

According to the UI, I have 800GB more available, than I actually have

 

 

Try

 

df -H

 

instead of

 

df -h

 

It's the old argument about whether 1 kB is 1000 B or 1024 B.

 

Try

 

df -H

 

instead of

 

df -h

 

It's the old argument about whether 1 kB is 1000 B or 1024 B.

 

Yeah that gives the same result as the UI, but a 3TB disk, does not have 3tb usable space.

It certainly has at least 3,000,000,000,000 bytes of available storage. That is 3 TB. I don't know what "3 tb" means though. The argument has been had elsewhere.

 

It certainly has at least 3,000,000,000,000 bytes of available storage. That is 3 TB. I don't know what "3 tb" means though. The argument has been had elsewhere.

 

No. 3000592982016 bytes is 2.72902TB. Which is what Unraid should be reporting, and not 3TB as it does.

3000592982016b=2.72902TiB=3TB

 

Google Terabyte vs Tebibyte

3000592982016b=2.72902TiB=3TB

 

Google Terabyte vs Tebibyte

 

I know about the concept. But that is not how everyone else counts bytes. Unraid is the only system I have ever seen reporting bytes like this.

3000592982016b=2.72902TiB=3TB

 

Google Terabyte vs Tebibyte

 

I know about the concept. But that is not how everyone else counts bytes. Unraid is the only system I have ever seen reporting bytes like this.

 

You have never seen a modern version of Mac OS? 

 

In any case, look at it from the perspective of a user of unRAID. The user buys a 3TB disk and sees 3TB in the user interface instead of a confusing lower number that does not make any sense, that surely can not be a problem?

 

Edit:

According to the UI, I have 800GB more available, than I actually have

 

Perfect example by the way, thank you!

 

You got the 800GB by subtracting 8.2 from 9.0 (TB), right? But if you insist on using 1024 rather than 1000 as base, that 0.8 in one unit does not translate to 800 in the smaller one...

3000592982016b=2.72902TiB=3TB

 

Google Terabyte vs Tebibyte

 

I know about the concept. But that is not how everyone else counts bytes. Unraid is the only system I have ever seen reporting bytes like this.

 

You have never seen a modern version of Mac OS? 

 

In any case, look at it from the perspective of a user of unRAID. The user buys a 3TB disk and sees 3TB in the user interface instead of a confusing lower number that does not make any sense, that surely can not be a problem?

 

I dont use Mac, so no not something I have noticed, the rare times I am on a mac

 

yes they buy a disk which is told to be a 3TB, but that is not the actual usable size. Why does the actual number not make sense?

This aint a problem for people using linux or windows.

3000592982016b=2.72902TiB=3TB

 

Google Terabyte vs Tebibyte

 

I know about the concept. But that is not how everyone else counts bytes. Unraid is the only system I have ever seen reporting bytes like this.

 

You have never seen a modern version of Mac OS? 

 

In any case, look at it from the perspective of a user of unRAID. The user buys a 3TB disk and sees 3TB in the user interface instead of a confusing lower number that does not make any sense, that surely can not be a problem?

 

I dont use Mac, so no not something I have noticed, the rare times I am on a mac

 

yes they buy a disk which is told to be a 3TB, but that is not the actual usable size. Why does the actual number not make sense?

This aint a problem for people using linux or windows.

you have to ask the disk manufacturers why they sell a disk using a size specified in decimal when that is not the traditional way of specifying sizes on computers.

 

I must admit that from a usability perspective I find the way unRAID handles this to be fine.  The size column is in decimal to reflect what the user thinks he has (and what the disk manufacturer told him he was buying) while the Used and Free columns are more accurate and use more traditional computer ways of specifying size.

3000592982016b=2.72902TiB=3TB

 

Google Terabyte vs Tebibyte

 

I know about the concept. But that is not how everyone else counts bytes. Unraid is the only system I have ever seen reporting bytes like this.

 

You have never seen a modern version of Mac OS? 

 

In any case, look at it from the perspective of a user of unRAID. The user buys a 3TB disk and sees 3TB in the user interface instead of a confusing lower number that does not make any sense, that surely can not be a problem?

 

I dont use Mac, so no not something I have noticed, the rare times I am on a mac

 

yes they buy a disk which is told to be a 3TB, but that is not the actual usable size. Why does the actual number not make sense?

This aint a problem for people using linux or windows.

you have to ask the disk manufacturers why they sell a disk using a size specified in decimal when that is not the traditional way of specifying sizes on computers.

 

I must admit that from a usability perspective I find the way unRAID handles this to be fine.  The size column is in decimal to reflect what the user thinks he has (and what the disk manufacturer told him he was buying) while the Used and Free columns are more accurate and use more traditional computer ways of specifying size.

But it shows me invalid values. It is annoying to see different values in windows contra unraid.

Fine that some users are happy with the way it is, but I would like an option to change this to correct values.

I really dont see why they would make it like this. If you are smart enough to setup a unraid system, you should be smart enough to know, that a "3TB" disk, is not 3TB usable.

I really dont see why they would make it like this. If you are smart enough to setup a unraid system, you should be smart enough to know, that a "3TB" disk, is not 3TB usable.

 

When you keep talking about "usable", it sounds like you believe that the reason Windows is showing about 2.7TB for 3TB disk is that the rest of the space exists but is unusable for some reason... The 3TB drives are 3TB, not 3TiB.