Contexts
Contexts
Posted Jul 14, 2022 10:09 UTC (Thu) by geert (subscriber, #98403)In reply to: Contexts by Wol
Parent article: Native Python support for units?
The packaging of the last hard drive I bought says "When referring to drive capacity, one gigabyte, or GB, equals one billion bytes and one terabyte, or TB, equals one thousand billion bytes." (some online variant used "trillion" instead of "thousand billion").
We can still discuss about the meaning of "billion" and "trillion" ;-)
Posted Jul 14, 2022 15:32 UTC (Thu)
by esemwy (guest, #83963)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jul 28, 2022 16:35 UTC (Thu)
by sammythesnake (guest, #17693)
[Link] (3 responses)
Million: 1,000,000
I prefer this style for the cool extra words, because it feels fractionally logical to my brain, but also because it gives a lot more headroom before running out of names I can remember :-D
Sadly, the "short scale" (with billion=1000 million, trillion=1000 billion etc.) is very definitely winning, partly because of US culture being so influential internationally, but also because it's the norm in scientific usage.
Now that I think of it, I wonder how we ended up with two conventions on this space in the first place...
Posted Jul 28, 2022 17:08 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
And I've never heard of your long scale, to me a billion was a million^2, a trillion was a billion^2. Easily described, you can have a million billion no problem ... (apart from it being a huge amount of whatever :-)
Cheers,
Posted Jul 28, 2022 18:13 UTC (Thu)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales#Long_...
American English has been using short scale since before the USA was a country.
France, bizarrely, switched from short scale to long scale in the 20th century (this being officially confirmed in 1961).
British official usage was declared to be short scale in 1974, on the occasion of the Tory member for Tiverton asking Harold Wilson if he was going to affirm British official usage to be long scale.
Posted Jul 30, 2022 15:39 UTC (Sat)
by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
[Link]
Posted Jul 14, 2022 18:23 UTC (Thu)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
Of course it does – it makes the drive seem bigger! At least to people who naïvely assume that one terabyte is 240 bytes (what SI calls “one tebibyte”).
Posted Jul 18, 2022 15:26 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
(Certainly when fdisk tells me how big my 4TB hard drive is, it comes out at rather more than 4 billion (that is 4x(10^6)^2 :-)
Cheers,
Posted Jul 19, 2022 22:50 UTC (Tue)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link] (9 responses)
RAM manufacturers, on the other hand, stuck mostly to binary sizes since RAM modules scale based on the number of address and data lines. The exception would be the modules with an odd number of data lines intended for parity or ECC bits... but the usable space after ECC is still generally a power of two.
The SI unit for information is the *bit*. Insisting on the SI definition of "kilo" with *bytes* as the base unit makes no sense; in pure SI terms you're measuring in multiples of 8,000 (or 8,000,000 etc.) SI base units, not powers of 1,000. The prefixes used for SI units can have other meanings in different contexts; no one insists that a microservice must be exactly one-millionth of a service, for example.
Unfortunately this has been muddied to the point that a simple "KB" or "kilobyte" can never again be considered unambiguous, so when precision matters I suggest using "KiB" for "binary kilobyte" or "KeB" for "decimal kilobyte". Forget about "kibibyte"; that just sounds stupid. (But if you insist-- the decimal equivalent can only be "kedebyte".) Or you can measure the data in bits rather then bytes, with an unambiguous SI decimal prefix.
Posted Jul 20, 2022 7:00 UTC (Wed)
by geert (subscriber, #98403)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Jul 22, 2022 1:38 UTC (Fri)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link] (7 responses)
Within the SI system, sure. But as I said, bytes are not an SI unit, so SI prefixes do not apply. In another context the "kilo" prefix can easily mean something else entirely—even 1024.
Practically speaking, "kB" or "kilobyte" means either 1024 bytes (the traditional version dating back to the early days of binary computers, and an integer power of two in bits) or 1000 bytes (the new version coerced into the ill-fitting SI system, mixing base-2 and base-10 to arrive at 8,000 bits). A reader can't tell which you meant, so if the difference between 1024 and 1000 matters at all then you should avoid the term altogether. I only offered an unambiguous alternative modeled on the KiB / "kibibyte" nomenclature. It's not SI but it does a far better job of communicating the intent.
If you want to stick with SI, don't talk about bytes. The SI base unit for information is the bit.
Posted Jul 22, 2022 2:49 UTC (Fri)
by rschroev (subscriber, #4164)
[Link]
Kilo meaning 1024 is the new version invented in the early days of binary computers, already wrong and in conflict with both existing standards and the Greek word χίλιοι (chilioi) it's derived from literally meaning 1000.
Kilo meaning 1000 is the traditional version, consistent with existing usage dating back to the end of the 18th century, long before the rise of binary computers; and consistent with the Greek word going back a few thousand years further still.
Posted Jul 30, 2022 4:16 UTC (Sat)
by JanC_ (guest, #34940)
[Link] (5 responses)
The only problem with using bytes is that the size of a byte is not fixed (it is hardware-dependent), so you have to specify somewhere what size the bytes you are talking about are…
It would have been much better if English language computer engineers had used 'octet' for “modern” 8-bit bytes instead (as the French do).
Posted Jul 30, 2022 9:27 UTC (Sat)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link] (3 responses)
Outside of what are now very niche contexts, this is not a serious concern.
Posted Jul 30, 2022 11:36 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
Niche contexts ... like networking?
I was always under the impression that you can't divide your networking kb by 8 to get your data transfer kB, because an 8-bit data byte is about a 10-bit network byte ...
(or is it because the b in networking stands for baud which is most definitely not a bit ...)
Cheers,
Posted Jul 30, 2022 13:47 UTC (Sat)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
That's still a good rule of thumb, as when you factor in network/protocol overhead, it works out pretty consistently:
10Mbps =~ 1MB/s, 100Mbps =~ 10MB/s, 1000MBps =~ 100MB/s
(Over 1Gbps it tends to fall off somewhat; for example the most I recall getting using 10Gbps fiber (and 9K jumbo frames) was about 550MB/s, though that was probably CPU bound as I was using 'scp')
Posted Jul 30, 2022 19:29 UTC (Sat)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link]
It depends on where the network technology's speed rating is measured.
For example, 100BASE-TX's rated speed of 100 Mbit is measured in terms of the 25MHz 4-bit parallel data stream fed to the MII, not the 125 MHz run-length-limited serial data stream the 4b5b encoder behind the MII feeds to the MLT-3 encoder that generates the three-level waveform seen on the wire.
Of course, 100 Mb/s of packet data transfer doesn't translate into 12.5 MB/s of actual application data transfer, because of the protocol overheads imposed by various layers.
Posted Jul 30, 2022 15:42 UTC (Sat)
by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
[Link]
Contexts
Contexts
Milliard: 1,000 million
Billion: 1,000 milliard (a million million - a "Bi-illon")
Billiard: 1,000 billion
Trillion: 1,000 billiard (a million million million - a "tri-illion)
Trilliard: 1,000 trillion etc.
Contexts
Wol
Contexts
"Winning" long vs. short scale
Contexts
The packaging of the last hard drive I bought says "When referring to drive capacity, one gigabyte, or GB, equals one billion bytes and one terabyte, or TB, equals one thousand billion bytes."
Contexts
Wol
Contexts
Contexts
Contexts
Contexts
Contexts
Contexts
Contexts
Wol
Contexts
Contexts
Contexts