Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:27:43 -0400 | From | James Smart <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] scsi/sd: Fix size output in MB |
| |
Matthew Wilcox wrote: > Reasonable minds can certainly disagree on this one. I respectfully > submit that reporting a 97415MB capacity is less useful than reporting a > 97GB capacity. If you look at drive advertisements, they sell 1TB, > 1.5TB, 80GB, 750GB, 360GB, ... we should be trying to match that. I'm a > little dubious about trying to match the 1.5TB; I think 1500GB is close > enough, but a 50GB drive shouldn't be reported as 50000MB. IMO, anyway.
Since when did techies start paying attention to marketing statements ?
We should be doing what's natural and *consistent*, which is typically dealing with power-of-2. Saying it's one thing at one level, and when the natural use (how many 512 byte sectors get added up later) changes that number in a different level, you've created even more confusion. There's no consistency.
As far as user concern - they've seen this discrepancy in the PC/Windows world for years now... Why should we be taking on the task to solve or answer it now ? Throw in different overheads for filesystem metadata loss, volume manager metadata, raid level loss, etc - you'll never be able to explain it all to the user. And personally, I'd rather have natural numbers so that if I do understand the uses, I can do calculations without doing number-base conversions.
-- james s
| |