On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 11:53:16AM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
Michael Stone wrote:> I'd assume it's confusion between bits and bytes. [...] > just write out bit or byteAndrei POPESCU wrote:SI prefixes can also help... if you use them consistently.It is a classic that programs talk mixed about GB and GiB while not clearly distinguishing them. In general, users must keep the difference in mind when they compare "GB" values from different programs. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte
This is basically never an issue in conversational usage as the difference is less than the margin of error or real-world precision. If you're planning for a million dollars worth of storage, yeah, make sure you're clear on what you're buying. But when discussing a 10Gbit/s network or a 4TByte drive, there isn't ambiguity. (Only, potentially, pedantry.)
Hans wrote:> And second: If the real transferrate is only 1,5Gbyte/sec, does this mean, > that the sata controller is not capable to higher transferratesNo existing SATA can deliver 1.5 gigabytes (+/- 7.4 percent). So something is wrong in this statement and only original output from exactly quoted program runs could tell what.
Again, there's no real ambiguity here. Since we know that 1.5Gbyte/s SATA doesn't exist we've clearly identified that there was confusion when reading the original spec (caused by the stupid B/b convention) and that 1.5Gbit/s is correct--with enough certainty to simply point out and explain the issue and move on.