1TB does not equally 1TB WTF?

[Sutter]

bleep, bop, gizzzzzzzzzzzz, bsssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, gig, nano

[Syprik]

I've heard of exabytes.. but zettas and yottas are new to me.
That's just crazy.. 1 yottabyte = 1 trillion terabytes.
I mean, why bother? Even at the speed of RAM, It would take a lifetime to write that much data.

Not for BlueGene/L (IBM) - 280.6 TFlop/s, 131,072 processors ... she eats yotta's for breakfast. Fastest supercomputer in the world.

Syprik = Oink oink nerdy nerd.

[Tippster]

Heh. "She." Heh.

[mtbakerskier]

I'd say fill up the 973 GB you have before you start complaining about the lost 37 GB.

That last 23 is actually a bit of a big deal, as I figured when I am done with my scans, I would completly fill one TB from one years worth of pics. Now I have to rethink my organizational method.

to the bilionare that decied 1TB wont really be 1TB, its kinda like selling those assemble it your self storage units, but giving one screw less than you need.

Fuckers

[lemon boy]

you bought data storage for just the exact amount of data you think you already have to store and they still gave you a degree in engineering? WTF man?

[mtbakerskier]

you bought data storage for just the exact amount of data you think you already have to store and they still gave you a degree in engineering? WTF man?

Yes / No...... I knew I needed 1TB worth of space per year. So the plan was to have a seperate Aperature library for each year (Each library must be on a continous drive) So the plan was to get a 1TB drive (basically a pre built RAid 0 Config) and put each libarary in its own drive. I can still make it work, jsut not as "clean and organzied" as I would like.

I jsut didnt expect that a 1TB drive would be 23 GIGS short!

If you think about it the computer industry is the only industry so fucked up that 1+1 doesnt always equal 2. What kind of fucked up adding / nomincalture is that bullshit? Not exactly logical.

[f2f]

i'm configuring this for our 'endless' storage requirements:

http://www.raidweb.com/4830.html

1.7TB (2.1TB in Raid0, but 1.7 in Raid5) appearing as a single disk (fibre or scsi, we use scsi). hot-swappable drives, etc. you can daisy-chain some models too.

our storage server is slightly more 'clever' than usual, storing identical blocks only once, so we definitely don't grow as fast as your requirements. we expect to fill a TB of daily backup in about 2 years...

it will probably be more expensive than you want, but we need it to be on-line all the time.

[runethechamp]

If you think about it the computer industry is the only industry so fucked up that 1+1 doesnt always equal 2. What kind of fucked up adding / nomincalture is that bullshit? Not exactly logical.

Time to bring out the nerd in me....

Since everything in computers is based on the binary number system, with only 0s and 1s, it makes sense. 1kB is therefore 2^10 or 1024 bytes, and not 1000 bytes. Or in other words, it makes sense for the computer, but maybe not for us. But most people don't care about that small difference, nor will they notice it.

To continue on the argument, the number 10 isn't really a good number to work with. It would be much easier if we were counting to 7 and then called 8 10. Then we could always divide our base number by 2 until we came down to the single digit 1. 10 just worked out because we have 10 fingers and 10 toes.

English units, on the other hand, with numbers such as 3 or 12 as typical common denominators, are totally fucked up.

[hop]

It would be much easier if we were counting to 7 and then called 8 10.

Marty: Why don't you ten be the top number and make ten a little louder?
Nigel: ...These go to eleven. One louder.

[fez]

basically networks and storage devices are measured in base 10, so in these cases
1 TB = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes – 1000^4 or 10^12
(in fact, this is why most network speeds are measured in bits, converting it to bytes would require a multiplication by 8 which would lead to inaccuracies rather than just confusion)

but, most computer systems and memory works in base 2 so in these cases
1 TB = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes – 1024^4 or 2^40

There was an attempt to fight this ambiguity, I dont think it has gained much popularity, but if you want to talk about a base 2 terabyte, you can call it a tebibyte (TiB)

if you do the math,

(1,000,000,000,000 / 1,099,511,627,776) * 100 = 90.9%
So a TB is 90.9% of a TiB.

Sounds to me like you got a bit more than a 1TB disk rather than shortchanged. Plus the marketers like to round things to make them sound better.

http://www.pcguide.com/intro/fun/bindec.htm

[Storm11]

It's because you have it as a RAID...it's reserved for the directory files (which can get pretty big once your drive is full)...had the same thing happen with my 2.4 TB drive.

[Arty50]

Sigh, it has always been this way since the first computers. When you formatted a 400k floppy it, 386k was left. 800k? 750 left. 1G -> 950M and so on. The "missing space" actually contains hidden files which map out the directory structure of the disk. There's no way around this and probably never will be.

Now I know what you're saying, "These files are going to be on every disk, so why don't they list the drives at the true capacity of files that the end user can store on them?" Well, it's because directory structures are flexible and can take up different amounts of room. NTFS, HFS+, and other file systems will all take up different amounts of space for a given structure; and then there's the fact that larger, more complicated structures will take up more room also. So hard drive manufacturers mearly list the full capacity of the drive. Your choice of OS, file system, and/or structure is not their fault.

[TomK]

I've heard of exabytes.. but zettas and yottas are new to me.
That's just crazy.. 1 yottabyte = 1 trillion terabytes.
I mean, why bother? Even at the speed of RAM, It would take a lifetime to write that much data.

Don't think that these prefixes were invented for computers. The computer industry was invented by nerds and real nerds use the Metric system.
They are the standard Metric system prefixes for dealing with any unit of measurement, and they cover from 10 to the 24th down to 10 to the -24th.

FYI, the earth is about 5,983 Yottagrams in weight and gains around 40 Gigagrams per year from stuff falling on it.
A dollar = 1 hectopenny, and a penny = 1 centidollar (hence "cents".)
1/1000th of an inch = 1 milli-inch


Here's a link to them all for further geekoutage...
http://www.nanotech-now.com/metric-prefix-table.htm

[Ski Monkey]

Here's another fun one...

Just got home from the store with 2 new 300gb drives to replace an ibm drive that took the click of death this morning. Was going to put them in a raid 1 config as it's a basic backup machine. Plop them in and what do I see, 128gb avail. Damn. I knew the computer was old, but didn't realize the boot rom was so old it doesn't see anything larger than that. Ah well, bought them big anyhow for when I can move them to a proper raid enclosure.

[midget]

blah blah blah blah, i have a friggin terrabyte of hd space....blah blah blah

[Arty50]

I knew the computer was old, but didn't realize the boot rom was so old it doesn't see anything larger than that.

[nerd]It could be an old ATA interface too.[/nerd]

[Ski Monkey]

[nerd]It could be an old ATA interface too.[/nerd]

I've thought about that but I came across and apple tech note saying computers built before 2002 don't have a boot rom that supports larger volumes. It's not a huge deal since I'm looking to move these drives over to a raid 5 network box in a month or two and I bought them this large for that purpose.

[Graupel]

I need 1.21 jiggabytes of room for my new flux capacitor design.

Run for it Marty, It's the Libyans!!

[Arty50]

I've thought about that but I came across and apple tech note saying computers built before 2002 don't have a boot rom that supports larger volumes. It's not a huge deal since I'm looking to move these drives over to a raid 5 network box in a month or two and I bought them this large for that purpose.

http://lowendmac.com/macdan/05/1024.html