I often find myself explaining the same things in real life and online, so I recently started writing technical blog posts.

This one is about why it was a mistake to call 1024 bytes a kilobyte. It’s about a 20min read so thank you very much in advance if you find the time to read it.

Feedback is very much welcome. Thank you.

  • @wischiOP
    link
    English
    -26
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    So why don’t they just label drives in Terabit instead of terabyte. The number would be even bigger. Why don’t Europeans also use Fahrenheit, with the bigger numbers the temperature for sure would instantly feel warmer 🤣

    Jokes aside. Even if HDD manufacturers benefit from “the bigger numbers” using the 1000 conversation is the objectively only correct answer here, because there is nothing intrinsically base 2 about hard drives. You should give the blog post a read 😉

    • silly goose meekah
      link
      fedilink
      English
      206 months ago

      there is nothing intrinsically base 2 about hard drives

      did you miss the part where those devices store binary data?

      • @wischiOP
        link
        English
        -146 months ago

        Binary prefixes (the ones with 1024 conversations) are used to simplify numbers that are exact powers of two - for example RAM and similar types of memory. Hard drive sizes are never exact powers of two. Disk storing bits don’t have anything to do with the size of the disk.

        • silly goose meekah
          link
          fedilink
          English
          86 months ago

          sure, but one of the intrinsic properties of binary data is that it is in binary sized chunks. you won’t find a hard drive that stores 1000 bits of data per chunk.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            The “chunk” is often 32,768 bits these days and it never matches the actual size of the drive.

            A 120 GB drive might actually be closer to 180 GB when it’s brand new (if it’s a good drive - cheap ones might be more like 130 GB)… and will get smaller as the drive wears out with normal use. I once had a HDD go from 500 GB down to about 50 GB before I stopped using it - it was a work computer and only used for email so 50 GB was when it actually started running out of space.

            HDD / SSD sellers are often accused of being stingy - but the reality is they’re selling a bigger drive than what you’re told you’re getting.

          • @wischiOP
            link
            English
            -76 months ago

            Look up the exact number of bytes and then explain to me what the benefits are of using 1024 conversations instead of 1000 for a hard drive?

        • @gens
          link
          English
          26 months ago

          SSDs are.

          • @wischiOP
            link
            English
            16 months ago

            Not even SSDs are. Do you have an SSD? You should lookup the exact drive size in bytes, it’s very likely not an exact power of two.

            • @gens
              link
              English
              16 months ago

              Checked and true. 500107862016 bytes.

              Still, ssds are made of n^2 chips.

              • @wischiOP
                link
                English
                1
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                The underlying chips certainly are exact powers of two but the drive size you get as a consumer is practically never an exact power of two, that’s why it doesn’t really make sense to divide by 1024.

                The size you provided would be 500107862016 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 = 465.76174163818359375 GiB

                Divided by 1000³ it would be 500.107862016 GB, so both numbers are not “pretty” and would’ve to be rounded. That’s why there is no benefit in using 1024 for storage devices, even SSDs.

                The situation is a bit different with RAM. 16 “gig” modules are exactly 17179869184 bytes. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=prime+factors+of+17179869184

                So you could say 17.179869184 GB or 16 GiB. Note that those 16 GiB are not rounded and the exact number of bytes for that RAM module. So for memory like caches, RAM, etc. it definitely makes sense to use binary prefixes with 1024 conversion but for storage devices it wouldn’t make a difference because you’d have to round anyway.

                • @gens
                  link
                  English
                  16 months ago

                  It’s the size in bytes as the os sees it (and in SMART). And i do know how to use a calculator, thank you.

                  There is also no benefit to using 1000. Except to hdd makers.

                  • @wischiOP
                    link
                    English
                    1
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    There is a benefit in using 1000 because it’s consistent with all the other 1000 conversions from kg to gramm, km to meter, etc. And you can do it in your head because we use a base 10 number system.

                    36826639 bytes are 36.826639 MB. But how many MiB? I don’t know, I couldn’t tell you without a calculator.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      176 months ago

      there is nothing intrinsically base 2 about hard drives

      Yes there is. The addressing protocol. Sectors are 512 (2⁹) bytes, and there’s an integer number of them on a drive.

      • @wischiOP
        link
        English
        -166 months ago

        That’s true but the entire disk size is not an exact power of two that’s why binary prefixes (1024 conversation) don’t have any benefit whatsoever when it comes to hard drives. With memory it’s a bit different because other than with storage devices RAM size is always exactly a power of two.