>The user DEFINITELY isn't expecting 500000000 bytes, or what you meant to >say 500000000000 bytes, they're expecting 500GB. You know, 536,870,912,000 >bytes. But even if the drive mfg's calculated it correctly, they wouldn't >even be getting that due to filesystem overhead.
Then you have a very stupid user who is been living in a cave. The only reason why we incorrect label memory is because the systems are binary. (Incorrect, because there's one standard and it says that "K", "M", "G" and "T" are powers of 10.) The computer cannot efficiently address non-binary sized memory. IIRC, some stupid user did indeed sue WD and he won, but that is in America (I'm sure that the km is 1024 meters in the US) Since that lawsuit the vendors all make sure that the specification says how many addressable sectors are in a disk. You make the "right size" disk "a big issue". And perhaps it is, however, ZFS is out a number of years and noone complained about it before. It's not just a "big priority", it's not even in the list. File a bug/rfe, if you want this fixed. Casper _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
