Re: Using standardized SI prefixes
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:29:47PM -0400, Ivan Jager wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 08:11:23PM -0400, Ivan Jager wrote:
> >You seem to claim that binary units (ie powers of 2) are natural
> >everywhere related to computers, but I disagree.
> Not everywhere related to computers. Only when the unit is bytes.
Wow, what a concession!
> >It's natural for
> >memory and structures like it, but not for bitstream quantities like
> >network traffic.
> Yes, for network traffic both are just as natural.
Except that our decimal prefixes (10^N) are part of our language and
therefore win by default.
> >Most NAND FLASH chips have 2062 byte
> >blocks, which even throws the memory device argument out the window.
> I have no idea about this, but I would expect
> to have more results where the 2062 is a block size...
Sorry, I meant 2112.
> You forgot about ECC SDRAM which is 72 bits wide. So when you buy a 1GB
> (72x128M) DIMM, you're actually getting 1207959552 bytes of raw storage.
Actually the controllers don't memory-map the extra 8 bits per 64. The
existence of the extra bits is totally hidden between the RAM and the
For NAND flash however the whole 2112 byte blocks are memory mapped.
After every 2112 bytes there's a gap until the next 4K boundary.
> But even then, the powers of two are more natural than the powers of 10.
Yes for memory structures, I agree. You failed to address my point about
bitstream quantities like network traffic.
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>