You seem to be trying to calculate in Tebibytes (TiB) and Pebibytes (PiB), which are based on the binary system, rather than Terabytes (TB) and Petabytes (PB), which are base 10.
Although some operating systems incorrectly use the decimal-based units with binary-based values (i.e. 1TB = 1024MB), that is technically wrong. Hard drive manufacturers actually report correctly using the decimal-based values (i.e. 1TB = 1000MB).
Also, you still got your maths wrong. 10TiB = ~0.09PiB.
In this case, the historical, and de-facto standard, wins. Base 2 capacities are all that matter for computer data stored in base two units of capacity, such as a block on a disc, computer memory, etc. You won't catch me using the inanely stupid SI unit names for this.
Data transmission isn't done in power of two unit sizes (packets can be variable size), so they should indeed use base 10 units, and bits, not bytes. 10Mbps, no problem.
Hard drives are formatted with block sizes that are a power of two (e.g., 512 bytes). Thus it is more useful to see how many of them you would have on a filesystem than some power of ten figure that also conveniently inflates the capacity.
Imagine RAM being sold in base 10, it would be stupid.
Hard drives are formatted with block sizes that are a power of two (e.g., 512 bytes). Thus it is more useful to see how many of them you would have on a filesystem than some power of ten figure that also conveniently inflates the capacity.
The issue being discussed isn't whether they should use base 10 or base 2 values, it's about which SI Prefix names that should be used for reporting the values.
It is an indisputable fact that hard drive manufacturers do currently use base 10 values and the base 10 prefixes. If you think they should use base 2 values, then fine, you may have a valid point. But you would have take it up with their marketing departments. However, if they did, they would also have to switch to the base 2 prefixes to avoid any c
SI is the older, historical standard, dating back to the nineteenth century. And you are using the 'inanely stupid' SI names, but breaking the standard by redefining them for your own purposes. How difficult is it to write TiB instead of TB when you want to be unambiguous?
The computer industry had been using the "byte" unit way before the SI Nazis kicked in. The fact that "kilo" means 1000 for grams, meters, etc. doesn't mean it has to apply to bytes.
The reason for SI standardization is for easy conversion between units. Working in base 2 is much more natural than on base 10 in the computer industry. I hereby propose we keep the defacto standard, and invent a new unit called "glob", where a equals 1000,000bytes. For all of us who actually need a base 2 system to work with, w
I won't speculate as to whom you refer to as 'SI Nazis', but as I said, the metric system is much, much older than the idea of a byte, which was only conceived in the last century.
The problem with breaking the SI standard is that even if you accept byte units based on powers of 2, it doesn't make actual usage consistent.
I could go out and purchase a gigabyte of RAM, and it should be 1,073,741,824 bytes, but if I dig up an old one gigabyte hard drive, I should only expect it to have 1,000,000,000 bytes. WTF
I am confused !! (Score:5, Funny)
How many Libraries of Congress are necessary to break the 1-petabyte barrier ??
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I am confused !! (Score:2, Informative)
You seem to be trying to calculate in Tebibytes (TiB) and Pebibytes (PiB), which are based on the binary system, rather than Terabytes (TB) and Petabytes (PB), which are base 10.
Although some operating systems incorrectly use the decimal-based units with binary-based values (i.e. 1TB = 1024MB), that is technically wrong. Hard drive manufacturers actually report correctly using the decimal-based values (i.e. 1TB = 1000MB).
Also, you still got your maths wrong. 10TiB = ~0.09PiB.
Re: (Score:1)
I speak on behalf of many people when I say this:
Screw the SI units for data capacity.
1PB = 1024TB
1TB = 1024GB
1GB = 1024MB
1MB = 1024KB
1KB = 1024B
In this case, the historical, and de-facto standard, wins. Base 2 capacities are all that matter for computer data stored in base two units of capacity, such as a block on a disc, computer memory, etc. You won't catch me using the inanely stupid SI unit names for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, well, like it or not, hard drive manufacturers and data transmission rates use the base 10 SI units.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Data transmission isn't done in power of two unit sizes (packets can be variable size), so they should indeed use base 10 units, and bits, not bytes. 10Mbps, no problem.
Hard drives are formatted with block sizes that are a power of two (e.g., 512 bytes). Thus it is more useful to see how many of them you would have on a filesystem than some power of ten figure that also conveniently inflates the capacity.
Imagine RAM being sold in base 10, it would be stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard drives are formatted with block sizes that are a power of two (e.g., 512 bytes). Thus it is more useful to see how many of them you would have on a filesystem than some power of ten figure that also conveniently inflates the capacity.
The issue being discussed isn't whether they should use base 10 or base 2 values, it's about which SI Prefix names that should be used for reporting the values.
It is an indisputable fact that hard drive manufacturers do currently use base 10 values and the base 10 prefixes. If you think they should use base 2 values, then fine, you may have a valid point. But you would have take it up with their marketing departments. However, if they did, they would also have to switch to the base 2 prefixes to avoid any c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The answer to your question is 1/2 Mexico difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
The computer industry had been using the "byte" unit way before the SI Nazis kicked in. The fact that "kilo" means 1000 for grams, meters, etc. doesn't mean it has to apply to bytes.
The reason for SI standardization is for easy conversion between units. Working in base 2 is much more natural than on base 10 in the computer industry. I hereby propose we keep the defacto standard, and invent a new unit called "glob", where a equals 1000,000bytes. For all of us who actually need a base 2 system to work with, w
Re: (Score:2)
I won't speculate as to whom you refer to as 'SI Nazis', but as I said, the metric system is much, much older than the idea of a byte, which was only conceived in the last century.
The problem with breaking the SI standard is that even if you accept byte units based on powers of 2, it doesn't make actual usage consistent. I could go out and purchase a gigabyte of RAM, and it should be 1,073,741,824 bytes, but if I dig up an old one gigabyte hard drive, I should only expect it to have 1,000,000,000 bytes. WTF