From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Leslie Rhorer" <lrhorer@satx.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Adding a smaller drive
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:16:17 -0500
Message-ID: <20090701041625544.LNL26680@cdptpa-omta04.mail.rr.com>
References: <4A47F438.4070905@anonymous.org.uk>
Reply-To: <lrhorer@satx.rr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A47F438.4070905@anonymous.org.uk>
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: 'John Robinson' <john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

> On 28/06/2009 22:22, Leslie Rhorer wrote:
> > 	I'm not confidant of that presumption.  I would not be surprised in
> > the least if some manufacturer produced a 1T drive with an actual 999.8G
> 
> If they did that, they'd be lying in describing it as a 1TB drive. I

	'Not as long as they do publish the actual size.

> wish they'd be more honest in the first place and sell them as 931GiB
> drives, or make real 1TiB drives, but the marketing literature does at
> least explain their definition of TB, GB etc.

	Which illustrates the point, I think.  In any case, it won't be the
end of the world, but it does make just one more thing to nag me.