KB, MB, GB, TB, etc. are ambiguous unit designations that can be used to mean _either_ 1000-base units, or 1024-base units.
KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB, etc. are actual units that specifically indicate that 1024-base units are being used. Rather annoying that anyone would use 1000-base units... I blame manufacturers/retailers who prefer them because they make storage devices "sound" bigger than they actually are. 1000-base units don't (IMHO) deserve their own "specific" units... but, I suppose it would clarify things... perhaps GbsB (you can interpolate your own meaning for the "bs" in the middle). But I digress.. It has, over the years, been somewhat unusual (in my experience) to see KiB, MiB, etc. displayed as such (even when 1024-base units are in use) - especially in the "very" end-user space of most GUIs... of course, usage in "your" distro/desktop/application may very. My initial thought was that you were seeing a blocksize issue - but I would assume that your GUI tools would report actual file size (which shouldn't change)... many tools will *also* report "disk usage" of a file - this is what WILL change (and could cause concern when comparing files) based on block size differences. I don't know that I've ever seen a general tool that displays *only* disk usage. I haven't done the math myself (call me lazy, I'm on "vacation" today)... but I'll trust Cian's calculations... assuming the numbers are corresponding values (one in 1000-base, one in 1024-base, units)... I can't imagine that there is any other explanation. +1 for using a file-digest for file comparisons... MD5 works fine for this use - just is no longer appropriate for encryption and key-type uses. Perhaps someone has some info (or wants to run an experiment) about which digest is faster - this could be useful info if comparing many and/or particularly large files. Wow... ok, I didn't intend to write that much (sorry)... but good topic - touches on a lot of pertinent issues... many of which are cause for misunderstanding on a regular basis. -Rick On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Joe Niski <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2013-12-10, 10:53 AM, "John Jason Jordan" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >Thanks. Both are reported as 4096. And both filesystems are ext4. So > >that leaves Cian's GiB - GB suggestion looking more likely. But Thunar > >used "GB" and "MB" on both computers, not "GiB" or "MiB." I wonder if > >they changed it between 1.2.3 and 1.6.3 but failed to change the text > >of the GUI window. > > This thread may help shed some light on the matter: > > http://askubuntu.com/questions/110999/is-it-possible-to-switch-ubuntu-back- > to-base-2 > ________________________________________ > Joe Shisei Niski > Portland, Oregon, USA > 至誠 > > > > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
