New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Question about insufficient hardware allocation for hosthatch
I found hosthatch's should disk measurements to be inaccurate; I use them for two servers, 6-core 24G 300G and 2-core 4GB 20GB.
For the above disks, I understand it should be the exact 300GB and 20GB, not for rules like 4TB = 4000TB = 3.8TB.
The actual 300GB is 278GB usable; the actual 20GB is only 19,072MB, and there seems to be some problem with their units.
I cloned the “20GB” hosthatch drive locally over the network using the dd command, and it actually only took up 18.6GB. Why is hosthatch harder on the hard drive side, this 1-2GB disk is not important to me, but it makes me use the 20GB drive from the other server. 20GB hard disk incomplete during recovery
Comments
TB / TiB
GB / Gib
300GB = 279.397GiB
I'm not sure I understand the problem.
That's insufficient!
there are 2 ways you can interpret this:
Also, have you formatted the drive with 0% reserved space (not recommend)? If not, then that will reduce the size displayed.
A lot of providers round up to avoid these types of questions.
But it's been industry standard for around 2 decades to use decimal version of gigabyte and terabyte when describing size of disks.
storage size calculated in 1000 bytes per KB, where as actual bytes are calculated in 1024 in 2^n factor.
It's just unfortunate they appropriated the same nomenclature we'd used the previous twenty plus years so now it's confusing which MB/GB/TB is intended...
Ask the same question to hdd manufacturers first.
I noticed something similar with the different OS you install on the VM (not from Hosthatch), with a variation up to 10% between the OSes!! I do not think your provider is trying to defraud you.
Gibibytes and gigabytes. Its an industry standard
It's not the same nomenclature though.
1024MB = 1GB = 1 Gigabyte
1000MB = 1GiB = 1 Gibibyte
If Providers are serving in Mebibyte, Gibibytes and Tebibytes they should make that clear by using MiB, GiB and TiB in their offers, (rather than MB, GB, TB), because they're not the same units.
It's even worse with beer though. If you buy a 'Pint' and then only get 500ml, (rather than the 568ml it should be), you're actually losing 13% of the product, (whereas mislabeled byte storage only costs the consumer 2.4%)
As I said, what they're doing standard.
This was literally the first result on Google: https://www.logicmonitor.com/blog/what-the-hell-is-a-kibibyte
Doesn't really matter if you agree or disagree, this is how disks are sized nowadays. If you go down to any shop, buy a 1TB.drive and format it you'll see the same thing.
The GB vs GiB is only a thing if you're explicitly trying to compare the too. In the real.world, normal people use the GB form for both.
It might be standard to use MiB, GiB and TiB for your offerings, and it's understandable that Providers choose to do that, but they should use those abbreviations in their sales threads and not confuse them with MB, GB and TB because they don't mean the same thing.
I haven't seen the advert OP bought from, and it may well be that they used the correct format and OP misunderstood what they were getting, but advertising MB/GB/TB and then providing MiB/GiB/TiB shouldn't become accepted practice.
What do you mean "shouldn't". It's been that way for 20 years now for storage.
You're both right
I mean there's a 2.5% difference in the unit size, and I often see MiB used for 'regulated' products like MP3 players and other consumer devices, so to me it just seems a bit dishonest and should be frowned upon more.
Obviously that's just my opinion, and I don't really care about 2.5% either way...but I do try to avoid it when transferring money so it kind of feels like it should matter 🤷♀️
As alluded to by @emgh's answer, I agree with you because more storage is always better as a purchaser, but this naming ship has already sailed, so my comment was about using the future tense (which, apologies, I didn't make clear).
For smaller sizes, like 10GB to 50GB partitions, I think most providers round up the numbers anyway because they don't want to waste time dealing with support questions about it. But every storage deal 1TB or up I have from any provider uses the decimal (ISO) gigabyte.
It is a LOT more than 2.5%
Which is made worse by the same multiplication on 1024 vs 1000 KB = 1MB and again with 1024 vs 1000 B = 1KB
And yes, it annoyed me when marketing for hard drives started doing it around the 1GB sized hard drives. A 512MB hard drive actually had 512MB available, minus a couple for the partition tablen
However when they do it with RAM, especially on low-end servers, that makes a big difference.
In the absence of any operating system, on rescue mode, nothing is retained, just what is actually seen.
If you have a server with less than 1TB of hosthatch, you will notice this, it is even smaller than GB or GiB.
I believe you have those backwards. They redefined the kilo/mega/giga to match their decimal equivalents. This is admittedly more accurate but now more confusing since there was 20 years of history using them incorrectly.
This is completely wrong in multiple ways.
Giga is 1.000.000.000 , so 1GB is one billion Bytes. Or 1000 MB as Mega is 1.000.000
However, 1024MB is also not 1GiB because 1GiB is actually 1073741824 Bytes and not 1.024.000.000
So, only
1024MiB = 1GiB
1000MB = 1GB
If a provider sells to you 300 GB it's a 300 with lots of zeroes and if you recalculate to GiB correctly you will see a 7.37% gap. On TB level it'll already be a 9.5% difference...
This guy zeroes....
Thanks @Falzo
Just math. And to be clear. I don't like thise definitions either. Grew up with an understanding, that in IT kilo, mega and giga have their own definitions as multiple of 1024 ... some marketing/sales strategist at some harddisk vendor proved it wrong 🤷🏻♂️
I find it worse that you'll find a lot of in between things. Like 2048 GB or 2000 GiB - both of which are no 2TiB. Or even linux displaying shit wrong, e.g. df versus parted
I remember when things used to be the other way around. The 80MB labelled drive I bought for my Amiga was actually a little over 81MB!
I believe Seagate was the first one to do that. One of a dozen things I hold against them.
Try using the XFS file format