On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 09:08:47AM +0100, Michał Kudła wrote:
> Hello,
> after
> ...
> hdb: max request size: 512KiB
> hdb: 488397168 sectors (250059 MB) w/8192KiB Cache, CHS=30401/255/63,
>
> Should be everywere KiB, MiB, GiB, ... according to IEC 60027-2
You are mistaken. The MB here are ac
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The exact number of sectors is often printend on the label.
Sure, I'd even say "almost always" for recent disks. Still, they
count in GBs, not sectors.
OTOH it would be great if they say "xxx,xxx,xxx 512-byte sectors",
and maybe "approx. X GB".
--
Kr
Krzysztof Halasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But other than the sector size there is no natural power of 2 connected to
>> disk size. A disk can have any odd number of sectors.
>
> But the manufacturers don't count in sectors.
The exact number of
On Jan 23 2007 02:04, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But other than the sector size there is no natural power of 2 connected to
>> disk size. A disk can have any odd number of sectors.
>
>But the manufacturers don't count in sectors.
>
>It should be consi
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But other than the sector size there is no natural power of 2 connected to
> disk size. A disk can have any odd number of sectors.
But the manufacturers don't count in sectors.
It should be consistent, though. "How many GB of disk space do you
need t
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Tony Foiani wrote:
> > "Jan" == Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jan> For "F"s sake, when you gotta use abbreviations, then just use
> Jan> k=1000 and K=1024 already, b for bits and B for bytes. Problem
> Jan> gone.
>
>The one-letter abbreviations are i
On Jan 22 2007 15:43, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>
>On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 05:58:42PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> For "F"s sake, when you gotta use abbreviations, then just use k=1000 and
>> K=1024 already, b for bits and B for bytes. Problem gone.
>
>And for 10^6 vs 2^20?
"My harddisk is a 251
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 06:36:19PM +, Alan wrote:
>> K is Kelvin, k is kilo-
>
> K is a unit is Kelvin, k/K as a prefix is kilo.
>
>> See ISO 31. There is a standard for this stuff which is used worldwide
>> and only bits of the computing industr
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 06:36:19PM +, Alan wrote:
> K is Kelvin, k is kilo-
K is a unit is Kelvin, k/K as a prefix is kilo.
> See ISO 31. There is a standard for this stuff which is used worldwide
> and only bits of the computing industry appear incapable of following it.
--
Len Sorensen
-
T
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 05:58:42PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> For "F"s sake, when you gotta use abbreviations, then just use k=1000 and
> K=1024 already, b for bits and B for bytes. Problem gone.
And for 10^6 vs 2^20?
> kegs perhaps? :)
Hmm, Mega -> Megs, Kilo -> Kils?
--
Len Sorensen
-
To
> "Jan" == Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jan> For "F"s sake, when you gotta use abbreviations, then just use
Jan> k=1000 and K=1024 already, b for bits and B for bytes. Problem
Jan> gone.
The one-letter abbreviations are identical to SI prefixes, except
for "K", which is us
> For "F"s sake, when you gotta use abbreviations, then just use k=1000 and
> K=1024 already, b for bits and B for bytes. Problem gone.
K is Kelvin, k is kilo-
See ISO 31. There is a standard for this stuff which is used worldwide
and only bits of the computing industry appear incapable of follow
On Jan 22 2007 10:53, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>
>> You talk for everybody, or is it just your (and only your) mind refusing
>> to accept new terms? For my taste, kib and mib are even easier to
>> speech, easier than {KiLoBytE} resp. {MeGaBytE} or KaaaBe / eMmmBe.
>
>There is too much legacy code a
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 12:10:00PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> And I cannot seriosly believe that you are cappable of reading his
> examples. Megabananas are a ridiculous demonstration becase of the
> object beeing counted itself, but if you take stuff from real life then
> I doubt that you expect
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 10:12:55PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Same lie like with harddrives. It's around 80, not 100.
> But it depends on how you look at it. 80 for Layer3, possibly
> a little more for Layer2/1.
Strange, I tend to get about 95 for layer 3.
--
Len Sorensen
-
To unsubscribe fro
Krzysztof Halasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It's just that storage vendors broke the computer rule and went with 1000.
>
> 1024 etc. is (should be) natural to disks because the sector size
> is 512 B, 2048 B or something like that.
But other than
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 02:56 +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Bleh. Except for storage, base 1024 was used for almost everything
> > I remember. 4 MB memory meant 4096 KB, and that's still the case today.
> > Most likely the same for transfer rates.
Hi Jan!
On 21 Jan 2007, at 22:12, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
How fast is your Ethernet port? 100Mbps or 95.37Mbps?
Same lie like with harddrives. It's around 80, not 100.
But it depends on how you look at it. 80 for Layer3, possibly
a little more for Layer2/1.
Nope, I get consistently 12e6 bytes
> "DS" == David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> If you are right, a "512MB" RAM stick is mislabelled and is more
DS> correctly labelled as "536.8MB". (With 512MiB being equally
DS> correct.)
DS> Isn't that obviously not just wrong but borderline crazy?
No. It is not obvious to me wh
> "Tony" == Tony Foiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tony> How fast is your Ethernet port? 100Mbps or 95.37Mbps?
> "Jan" == Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jan> Same lie like with harddrives. It's around 80, not 100. But it
Jan> depends on how you look at it. 80 for Layer3,
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bleh. Except for storage, base 1024 was used for almost everything
> I remember. 4 MB memory meant 4096 KB, and that's still the case today.
> Most likely the same for transfer rates.
Nope, transfer rates were initially 1000-based: 9.6 kbps = 9600 bps,
> > Talk about a cure worse than the disease! So you're
> > saying that 256MB flash
> > cards could be advertised as having 268.4MB? A 512MB RAM stick is
> > mislabelled and could correctly say 536.8MB? That's just plain
> > craziness.
> No, I meant to advertise it as a 256 MiB flash device and a
Eduard Bloch wrote:
> * Bodo Eggert [Sun, Jan 21 2007, 11:40:40AM]:
>> 2) No sane person would say kibibyte as required by the standard. You'd need
>>a sppech defect in order to do this, and a mental defect in order to try.
>>So why should anybody adhere to the rest of this bullshit?
>
> Y
On Jan 21 2007 17:06, Heikki Orsila wrote:
>
>> 2) No sane person would say kibibyte as required by the standard. You'd need
>>a sppech defect in order to do this, and a mental defect in order to try.
>>So why should anybody adhere to the rest of this bullshit?
>
>I think I'm not sane then
>How fast is your Ethernet port? 100Mbps or 95.37Mbps?
Same lie like with harddrives. It's around 80, not 100.
But it depends on how you look at it. 80 for Layer3, possibly
a little more for Layer2/1.
-`J'
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" i
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Yeah, and Ethernet speed is measured in Mbps, not Mibps.
Indeed.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
P
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> David Schwartz wrote:
> > Talk about a cure worse than the disease! So you're saying that 256MB
> > flash
> > cards could be advertised as having 268.4MB? A 512MB RAM stick is
> > mislabelled and could correctly say 536.8MB? That's just plain crazine
David,
On 1/20/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Leon said:]
> One way of getting rid of those inconsistencies would be to follow IEC
> 60027-2 for those cases where SI is inappropriate.
Talk about a cure worse than the disease! So you're saying that 256MB
flash
cards coul
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 11:40:40AM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> 1) This change isn't nescensary - any sane person will know that it's not a
>SI unit. You wouldn't talk about megabananas == 100 bananas and
>expect to be taken seriously.
I've met quite a few non-sane persons then. I find
> "BE" == Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BE> 1) This change isn't nescensary - any sane person will know that
BE> it's not a SI unit. You wouldn't talk about megabananas == 100
BE> bananas and expect to be taken seriously.
What about megaparsec? I have also seen graphs delimited
#include
* Bodo Eggert [Sun, Jan 21 2007, 11:40:40AM]:
> Tony Foiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> "David" == David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Just last night I formatted some new "500GB" drives, and they
> > eventually came back with 465GB as the displayed capacity. Wouldn
Tony Foiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "David" == David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just last night I formatted some new "500GB" drives, and they
> eventually came back with 465GB as the displayed capacity. Wouldn't
> it make more sense to display that as "465GiB"?
[...]
> Dav
David Schwartz wrote:
Talk about a cure worse than the disease! So you're saying that 256MB
flash
cards could be advertised as having 268.4MB? A 512MB RAM stick is
mislabelled and could correctly say 536.8MB? That's just plain craziness.
Adopting IEC 60027-2 just replaces a set
> "David" == David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> The way RAM and flash are measured is correct.
In my experience, RAM and flash *drives* are measured differently.
I understand that individual flash chips come in powers of 2, but by
the time they're packaged as a "flash drive"
> Nice observation, however, it still leaves quite an amount of internal
> inconsistencies in the kernel output.
I agree with the majority view that using the term 'MB' or 'GB' to mean
a
million or a billion bytes is inaccurate. The way RAM and flash are measured
is correct. The way disk
Hello,
On 1/20/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [1.] One line summary of the problem:
> KB->KiB, MB -> MiB, ... (IEC 60027-2 Letter symbols to be used in
> electrical
> technology – Part 2)
> Should be everywere KiB, MiB, GiB, ... according to IEC 60027-2
Bytes are not a
> [1.] One line summary of the problem:
> KB->KiB, MB -> MiB, ... (IEC 60027-2 Letter symbols to be used in
> electrical
> technology – Part 2)
> Should be everywere KiB, MiB, GiB, ... according to IEC 60027-2
Bytes are not an SI unit. A "megabyte" doesn't have to be a million
bytes
37 matches
Mail list logo
