On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:34 AM, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> On 3/16/2010 23:21, Erik Trimble wrote: > >> On 3/16/2010 8:29 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >> >>> On 3/16/2010 17:45, Erik Trimble wrote: >>> >>>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, March 16, 2010 14:59, Erik Trimble wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Has there been a consideration by anyone to do a class-action lawsuit >>>>>> for false advertising on this? I know they now have to include the >>>>>> "1GB >>>>>> = 1,000,000,000 bytes" thing in their specs and somewhere on the box, >>>>>> but just because I say "1 L = 0.9 metric liters" somewhere on the box, >>>>>> it shouldn't mean that I should be able to avertise in huge letters "2 >>>>>> L >>>>>> bottle of Coke" on the outside of the package... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think "giga" is formally defined as a prefix meaning 10^9; that is, >>>>> the >>>>> definition the disk manufacturers are using is the standard metric one >>>>> and >>>>> very probably the one most people expect. There are international >>>>> standards for these things. >>>>> >>>>> I'm well aware of the history of power-of-two block and disk sizes in >>>>> computers (the first computers I worked with pre-dated that period); >>>>> but I >>>>> think we need to recognize that this is our own weird local usage of >>>>> terminology, and that we can't expect the rest of the world to change >>>>> to >>>>> our way of doing things. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's RetConn-ing. The only reason the stupid GiB / GB thing came >>>> around in the past couple of years is that the disk drive manufacturers >>>> pushed SI to do it. >>>> Up until 5 years ago (or so), GigaByte meant a power of 2 to EVERYONE, >>>> not just us techies. I would hardly call 40+ years of using the various >>>> giga/mega/kilo prefixes as a power of 2 in computer science as >>>> non-authoritative. In fact, I would argue that the HD manufacturers don't >>>> have a leg to stand on - it's not like they were "outside" the field and >>>> used to the "standard" SI notation of powers of 10. Nope. They're inside >>>> the industry, used the powers-of-2 for decades, then suddenly decided to >>>> "modify" that meaning, as it served their marketing purposes. >>>> >>> >>> The SI meaning was first proposed in the 1920s, so far as I can tell. >>> Our entire history of special usage took place while the SI definition was >>> in place. We simply mis-used it. There was at the time no prefix for what >>> we actually wanted (not giga then, but mega), so we borrowed and repurposed >>> mega. >>> >>> Doesn't matter whether the "original" meaning of K/M/G was a >> power-of-10. What matters is internal usage in the industry. And that has >> been consistent with powers-of-2 for 40+ years. There has been NO outside >> understanding that GB = 1 billion bytes until the Storage Industry decided >> it wanted it that way. That's pretty much the definition of distorted >> advertising. >> > > That's simply not true. The first computer I programmed, an IBM 1620, was > routinely referred to as having "20K" of core. That meant 20,000 decimal > digits; not 20,480. The other two memory configurations were similarly > "40K" for 40,000 and "60K" for 60,000. The first computer I was *paid* for > programming, the 1401, had "8K" of core, and that was 8,000 locations, not > 8,192. This was right on 40 years ago (fall of 1969 when I started working > on the 1401). Yes, neither was brand new, but IBM was still leasing them to > customers (it came in configurations of 4k, 8k, 12k, and I think 16k; been a > while!). At this point in history it doesn't matter much who's right or wrong anymore. IMHO, what matters is that pretty much everything from the disk controller to the CPU and network interface is advertised in power-of-2 terms and disks sit alone using power-of-10. And students are taught that computers work with bits and so everything is a power of 2. Just last week I had to remind people that a 24-disk JBOD with 1TB disks wouldn't provide 24TB of storage since disks show up as 931GB. It *is* an anomaly and I don't expect it to be fixed. Perhaps some disk vendor could add more bits to its drives and advertise a "real 1TB disk" using power-of-2 and show how people are being misled by other vendors that use power-of-10. Highly unlikely but would sure get some respect from the storage community. -- Giovanni
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
