[lkml]   [1996]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: GB vs. MB

    Let's face it -- the original fault with KB/MB is in using the same prefixes
    that already had definitions for a different purpose. The scientific community
    has used K for kilo = 1000 and M for mega = 1000000 for quite a long time. The
    computer industry blew it badly by using K/kilo and M/mega for incompatible
    purposes. The marketeers have certainly done their part to encourage whichever
    interpretation looks bigger, but they didn't create the original problem.

    It would be one thing if there were no overlap between computer and scientific
    uses, but that just isn't so. For example, the PCI bus can burst transfer at a
    theoretical maximum frequency of 33.0MHz times 4 bytes/transfer. So you would
    think that this totals 132.0 MB/second, and indeed that's the way it is usually
    reported. But that MB is million, not 2^20. If we insist on MB meaning 2^20,
    we only get 125.885MB/second. A similar problem occurs in other cases where
    mega is used in a frequency or 1/time context, such as Fast SCSI-2 being 10.0
    mega-transfers/second. With MB = 2^20 Fast SCSI-2 is only good for 9.54
    MB/second. We can't just move "mega" around without thinking in these

    Since there's no truly consistent way to view this, I don't really care that
    much which way it's reported, so long as a footnote clearly specifies which
    meaning pertains. Since I've been working with SCSI a lot lately, I'm just as
    happy with MB = million for storage devices since it keeps the time/space
    computation easy.


     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.016 / U:58.364 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site