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
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 actual
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".
--
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
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 sectors is
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.
--
Krzysztof
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
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
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
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
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
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
-
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
> "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
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 what is wrong with
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
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.
Nope,
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 the
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 from
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 a
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 and
For Fs 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 following
Jan == Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jan For Fs 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 used
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 05:58:42PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
For Fs 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
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
-
To
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 industry appear
On Jan 22 2007 15:43, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 05:58:42PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
For Fs 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 gB
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Tony Foiani wrote:
Jan == Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jan For Fs 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
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 to
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 consistent,
> "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
> > 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
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?
>
>
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
>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"
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
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
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
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.
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"?
[...]
>
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?
[...]
David Adopting IEC
#include hallo.h
* 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't
it make
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 in
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
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 could
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 craziness.
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
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 in
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. I find
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?
You talk
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 512 MiB
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,
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, possibly a little
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
> "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
> 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
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
> [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" does
Hello,
according to http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/lkml/reporting-bugs.html
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
KB->KiB, MB -> MiB, ... (IEC 60027-2 Letter symbols to be used in electrical
technology – Part 2)
[2.] Full description of the problem/report:
kernel: 2.6.19
linux:
Hello,
according to http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/lkml/reporting-bugs.html
[1.] One line summary of the problem:
KB-KiB, MB - MiB, ... (IEC 60027-2 Letter symbols to be used in electrical
technology – Part 2)
[2.] Full description of the problem/report:
kernel: 2.6.19
linux: gentoo
[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 any more
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 an SI
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
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, some of
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
76 matches
Mail list logo
