Re: load-balancing twin 10GbE?

"Maxwell Lol" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:87ej069mu5.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"D. Stussy" <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
"Pascal Hambourg" <boite-a-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gibu61$ppb$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hactar a écrit :

Is "10 Gb ethernet" not really 10 * 2^30 bps?

No. In telecom/networking multiplier prefixes have always been
used
with
their "classic" decimal meanings.
k = 10^3 (thousand)
M = 10^6 (million)
G = 10^9 (billion)

So 10 Gbit/s = 10 * 10^9 bit/s. Besides, it's the raw signalling
bit
rate on the wire, not the payload bit rate.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. I've been in the
computer industry for 30 years, and everyone knows that k=2^10,
M=2^20, and G=2^30 for all computer related quantities.

It's amazing how marketing screwed up everything, isn't it?

Consider a 1.44MB floppy disk.
It has 2 sides, 80 tracks, and 18 sectors per track.
That's 2880 sectors of 512 bytes each. Formatted is 1474560 bytes.

Divide 1474560 by 1.44 and you get 1024000.
2^20 is 1048576, not 1024000.

So on the floppy disk, MB = 1024*1000, not 1000*1000 and not
1024*1024.
So in a 1.44MB floppy - MB is neither decimal, nor binary.

And if you don't believe me, check with

International Electrotechnical Commission, NIST, Wikipedia etc.
http://www.iec.ch/zone/si/si_bytes.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibibyte

Your first source included this: "The other primary reason is that
different parts of the IT industry had started to confuse
themselves...." There has NEVER been any confusion among the
professionals. The confusion comes in only from the untrained minions
they hired.

"The 1986 ANSI/IEEE Std 1084-1986[17] defined dual uses for kilo and
mega:
"kilo (K). (1) A prefix indicating 1000. (2) In statements involving
size of computer storage, a prefix indicating 2^10, or 1024.
"mega (M). (1) A prefix indicating one million. (2) In statements
involving size of computer storage, a prefix indicating 2^20, or
1,048,576."

These definitions follow the historical definitions from the 1960s
when the quantities were first needed to be expressed. As far as any
computer professional is concerned, this is still true today.

The wiki you cited stated: "While computer scientists typically used k
to mean 1000, ..."

Such has NEVER been true. Computer scientists have ALWAYS been
trained to know that "k" means 1024. Whoever wrote otherwise needs to
be shot. Computer scientists do not even recognize IEEE standards -
as those are for ENGINEERING, not our science. I couldn't care less
if some French organization ("IEC") proposed such a change; it has
never been accepted by the computer science community.

The governing body that is recognized by computer scientists is ACM
(as the largest worldwide organization of computer scientists), not
IEEE. ACM does not recognize this bullshit.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: load-balancing twin 10GbE?
    ... The confusion comes in only from the untrained minions ... size of computer storage, a prefix indicating 2^10, or 1024. ... characters a second under. ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: [opensuse] lsm space giveth and space taketh away: missing space?
    ... the mega kilo etc definition, by changing it to their own liking, disregarding proper usage. ... You don't like the definition, right: just use another prefix. ... The confusion started the moment computer people started to use kilo = 1024. ... Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: Compact flash capacity
    ... >>binding definition of the 'k' prefix applicable is made by exactly the ... This silly confusion has gone on ... Anyway if you are worrying about the misuse of a SI prefix, ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Can I use group by clause in DCount
    ... I rename my controls with a prefix like txtControlName to ... make sure there is no confusion with the Field with a similar name. ... mls wrote: ...
    (microsoft.public.access.formscoding)