From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>
Subject: Re: Adding a smaller drive
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:05:11 +0200
Message-ID: <87iqif1hk8.fsf@frosties.localdomain>
References: <20090628212227029.KYDP20969@cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com>
	<4A47F438.4070905@anonymous.org.uk>
	<4A47F7B9.3040003@anonymous.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A47F7B9.3040003@anonymous.org.uk> (John Robinson's message of
	"Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:07:37 +0100")
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: John Robinson <john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk>
Cc: lrhorer@satx.rr.com, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

John Robinson <john.robinson@anonymous.org.uk> writes:

> On 28/06/2009 23:52, John Robinson wrote:
>> 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
>> 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.
>
> Maybe it wouldn't be lying if they redefined 1KB to be 998 bytes. I
> vaguely recall there being an xkcd strip suggesting something
> similar...
>
> Cheers,
>
> John.

At least on some drives they actually say
1.000.xxx.xxx kilo bytes.

MfG
        Goswin