You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Because it's faster, I thought I would use terabytes as input for the disk sizes, but in some situations that doesn't work correctly:
The total usable space should be 18.5 TB here, with no unused space.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm afraid that doesn't really work. It kind of relies on "1" being 1 GiB, because that's the unit of allocation of the FS. It's definitely a good idea to clarify that by putting a "GiB" label on the values, though.
I'm afraid that doesn't really work. It kind of relies on "1" being 1 GiB, because that's the unit of allocation of the FS. It's definitely a good idea to clarify that by putting a "GiB" label on the values, though.
Perhaps allow for TiB units as input, but convert to GiB for the internal logic? I too find it easier to work with TiB units. Of course, we should not restrict to TiB.
Because it's faster, I thought I would use terabytes as input for the disk sizes, but in some situations that doesn't work correctly:
The total usable space should be 18.5 TB here, with no unused space.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: