lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-08-31 14:31    [W:8.220 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site