Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Networker\]\s+Saveset\s+size\s+KB\s+versus\s+MB\s+versus\s+GB\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Networker\]\s+Saveset\s+size\s+KB\s+versus\s+MB\s+versus\s+GB\?\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [Networker] Saveset size KB versus MB versus GB? (score: 1): Author: George Sinclair <George.Sinclair AT NOAA DOT GOV>; Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:25:27 -0500; Hello, I've noticed that sometimes NetWorker will list a saveset size in thousands of KB rather than MB. Other times, a size will be listed in thousands of MB rather than GB. Why does NetWorker list; /lists/html/Networker/2003-03/msg00496.html (10,240 bytes)
2. Re: [Networker] Saveset size KB versus MB versus GB? (score: 1): Author: "Wood, R A (Bob)" <WoodR AT CHEVRONTEXACO DOT COM>; Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:55:43 -0500; George, I think you hit the nail on the head with the way it displays values. I get write speeds in kB/s until it tops 10MB/s. I think it is to do with the size of the field to display the value, it; /lists/html/Networker/2003-03/msg00500.html (12,271 bytes)
3. Re: [Networker] Saveset size KB versus MB versus GB? (score: 1): Author: Stan Horwitz <stan AT TEMPLE DOT EDU>; Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:59:13 -0500; Which version of the NetWorker server are you using? According to the release notes for 6.1.3, one of the changes was a fix to a bug where NetWorker did not correctly report saveset sizes in some sit; /lists/html/Networker/2003-03/msg00501.html (10,655 bytes)
4. Re: [Networker] Saveset size KB versus MB versus GB? (score: 1): Author: George Sinclair <George.Sinclair AT NOAA DOT GOV>; Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:40:50 -0500; We're using 6.1.1. Under 6.1.3, do you notice the write speeds being reported in KB/s when running at less than 10 MB/s? Presumably this is a field value issue. George -- Note: To sign off this list,; /lists/html/Networker/2003-03/msg00506.html (11,517 bytes)
5. Re: [Networker] Saveset size KB versus MB versus GB? (score: 1): Author: Stan Horwitz <stan AT TEMPLE DOT EDU>; Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:42:34 -0500; Unfortunately, I cannot comment on using 6.1.3 because I have not migrated to it yet. Upgrading to 6.1.3 is on my list of things to do so I have read over the release notes. -- Note: To sign off this; /lists/html/Networker/2003-03/msg00507.html (10,270 bytes)
6. Re: [Networker] Saveset size KB versus MB versus GB? (score: 1): Author: George Scott <George.Scott AT ITS.MONASH.EDU DOT AU>; Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:58:23 +1000; George, Yes. This is probably to do with precision. (2 GB could be anywhere between 2000 MB and 2999 MB. Once you get to numbers like 23 GB it is less important whether it is 23000 MB or 23999 MB.) A; /lists/html/Networker/2003-03/msg00563.html (12,083 bytes)
7. Re: [Networker] Saveset size KB versus MB versus GB? (score: 1): Author: "King, Daniel" <DKing AT PM.COM DOT AU>; Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:11:05 +1100; The save information that I get is in Kb So to convert I need to divide by 1024 then by 1000. Technically speak I should divide by 1024 then by 1024 again. Which goes show that the coding of the Gb; /lists/html/Networker/2003-03/msg00564.html (13,530 bytes)
8. Re: [Networker] Saveset size KB versus MB versus GB? (score: 1): Author: Byron Servies <bservies AT PACANG DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:54:50 -0800; Hi, NetWorker does indeed calculate a megabyte as 1024 * 1000. Gigabytes on up are multiply this value by 1024. Why? The answer is not anywhere close as simple as you might imagine. The entire gamut; /lists/html/Networker/2003-03/msg00565.html (10,954 bytes)
9. Re: [Networker] Saveset size KB versus MB versus GB? (score: 1): Author: Andrew McGeorge <Andrew.McGeorge AT ASBBANK.CO DOT NZ>; Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:53:32 +1200; Hi, I think that you'll find that NetWorker counts 1000 MB as 1 GB. Andrew McGeorge The save information that I get is in Kb So to convert I need to divide by 1024 then by 1000. Technically speak I s; /lists/html/Networker/2003-03/msg00567.html (14,732 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]