Manual partitioning - units

[drknut]

Hello All,

I'm installing from the latest DVD (1905).

The manual partitioning accepts sizes in various units (MB, GB, GiB, ...) and displays them in GiB.

Is it a way to change the display from GiB to GB ?

[desertcat]

Hello All,

I'm installing from the latest DVD (1905).

The manual partitioning accepts sizes in various units (MB, GB, GiB, ...) and displays them in GiB.

Is it a way to change the display from GiB to GB ?

GiB = GB

I do a lot of manual Partitioning, as I do Custom Manual Partitioning rather than LVM. The problem that you run into is that you say set it for 10GB the problem is does it use 1000 MB = 1 GB or does it use 1024 MB = 1 GB ? The way I have solved the problem in the past is to say set it for say 10 GB, the number will come out to something other that 10 GB, I then go back into the displayed box and re-set to read 10 GB and that will usually hold.

[tony_down_under]

I can confirm with desertcat. Although I can never use all the space in the disk, either. Always get something like 1024.86Kib free space.

[pjsr2]

GiB = GB

Definitely not. These units differ by roughly 7 %. Hard disk vendors always print the size in GB on the box, because the number of GB you get is larger than the number of GiB and 536 GB sells better than 500 GiB.

Wikipedia has a nice write-up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibibyte

Unfortunately Unix/Linux has a long history where KB, MB or GB is wrongly displayed in places where KiB, MiB or GiB is intended. Although such abuse of units is incorrect and even illegal in many countries, not breaking backward compatibility appears to be more important.

[desertcat]

GiB = GB

Definitely not. These units differ by roughly 7 %. Hard disk vendors always print the size in GB on the box, because the number of GB you get is larger than the number of GiB and 536 GB sells better than 500 GiB.

Wikipedia has a nice write-up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibibyte

Unfortunately Unix/Linux has a long history where KB, MB or GB is wrongly displayed in places where KiB, MiB or GiB is intended. Although such abuse of units is incorrect and even illegal in many countries, not breaking backward compatibility appears to be more important.

OK as I noted a lot depends of if you are using The Metric System (x 1000 -- a GB=1000 MB); or you are using Binary (x 1024--a GB=1000 MB. Even if you are using Binary a lot depends on you wish to use the IEC (GiB) or the JEDEC (GB). In the IEC you talk about a "Gibibyte" (GiB) or in the JEDEC a Gigabyte (GB). Most people know what is meant by a "Gigabyte", but if you were to ask them what is a "Gibibyte", they would think you had a screw loose, even if YOU happened to know what it is.

(See Table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibibyte )

For all intensive purposes a 1 GB *is* = 1 GiB... even IF you happen to be referencing Binary, even there 1 GiB = 1GB. Until such a time that a Standards Body is created to use GB=Metric reference, and the IEC designation GiB=Binary reference and is used exclusively, and the JEDEC "GB" is retired.

This is 2019 and we are *still* trying to get the world -- including the U.S. -- to switch to a METRIC system of weights and measures because it is simple to understand because of it is base 10, trying to use BINARY which is based on 1024 in stead of 1000 counter-intuitive and trying to force people to use something other than metric is a lost cause. True there is a bit of salesmanship involved as you say, and for the reasons you say, but the truth is 7% is a trivial amount, when you are talking about GB (GiB) and TB (TiB)!!!!!

Where does it matter?? MEMORY!!! Memory sticks always to the best of my knowledge use the BINARY 1024!!! HDD?!? SSD's?!? Until such a time as all DATA STORAGE media shall be determined to be expressed ONLY in BINARY format then that 7% is a Rounding Error

P.S. BONUS Question: What is the difference between the Pound and the Kilogram?? Now apply that information to the Metric --vs -- Binary debate.

[jlehtone]

OK as I noted a lot depends of if you are using ...

That is the whole point. It is clear what system you do use when you have "GiB".
It is not at all clear whether GB really means GB.

To be intentionally ambiguous is not polite.


@drknut:
You want to change display to specific system because ... ?

[desertcat]

OK as I noted a lot depends of if you are using ...

That is the whole point. It is clear what system you do use when you have "GiB".
It is not at all clear whether GB really means GB.

To be intentionally ambiguous is not polite.
Alas you you are right, it is indeed impolite to be intentional ambiguous, that said 7% is trivial when you are are talking about GB and TB numbers that are so large that the average person can not wrap their brain around how large the number actually is. A Metric GB is 1 followed by 9 0's a Metric TB is a 1 followed by 12 0's. And we are talking about a 500 GB HDD or SSD you are talking about a 5 followed by 11 0's. Say you are off by 7%. a 500 GB HDD or SSD is still talking about being off by a mere 3.5 GB.

A lot comes down to how we process information and what it means. MEMORY has always to the best of my knowledge used the BINARY Number 1024. Why? Because BINARY is how computers have always processed information -- in 1's and 0's. DATA STORAGE however is a different beast. Why? Because of HOW data is stored on the drive. Usually as KB or MB chunks for SPEED. You may be writing a very small file, that could be measured in 100's for bytes, but if the "chuck" is 1 KB or 1 MB the rest of that "chunk" is EMPTY space. This was the idea behind many of the DOS defreg tools -- putting all the parts of a file into consecutive blocks which would increase SPEED OF ACCESS to the file and freeing up the "Empty Space", at the expense of HDD wear and tear of the drive. Short of file packing, a "FULL" drive has a lot of wasted EMPTY space in it, greater than the 7% differential between Metric and Binary system. You also have to remember that with HDD's there are areas that have media ERRORS (BAD BLOCKS) that can not be written to. Even if you are are using GiB that does not mean you have 100% of the drive available.

So how big is the drive? A rough estimate is all that is necessary. 525 GB is easier to digest than 512.7 GB... or 513 if you round it UP or 512 if you round it DOWN. Numbers such as 1,5,10,25, 50, 75, and 100 are easy to understand as they tend to follow are monetary system: 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 1.00 or 1/100, 1/10, 1/4, 1/2, 100. So a 525 GB HDD is Aprox = 500 + 1/4 (25) -- EASY to understand and remember. 512.7 or 513, or 512 is a lot harder to understand and/or to remember. 7% is a rounding error at such large numbers. Just wait until be are talking about Petabytes (PB) and Exabytes (EB).

With the advent of the SSD which is closer to that of MEMORY rather than DISK STORAGE then *maybe* expressing capacity in terms of GiB rather than GB *may* make sense, that said MEMORY SIMMS are *always* expressed in terms of BINARY capacity, thus a 8GB SIMM means it holds 8.592 GB not 8 GB or 8.5 GB neither of which would be accurate.

As HDD's head towards the same graveyard as the 5.25" Floppy Disk and the 3.5": Floppy Disk, and other extinct hardware we need to re-think how to express Storage Capacity. Right now it is simply easier to say 1 GB = 1 GiB be it you use the Metric 1000 system or the Binary 1024 system. If the Binary system then the JEDEC system of GB has to be eliminated so that the Metric GB and the Binary GB don't get confused. But really when you are using such large number such as GB and TB for all practical purposes the Metric and Binary GB=GiB=GB are all one and the same -- one is an APPROXIMATION (Metric) and the other is an EXACT measure (Binary). For the Average Joe a GB is a GiB.


@drknut:
You want to change display to specific system because ... ?

[desertcat]

OK as I noted a lot depends of if you are using ...
That is the whole point. It is clear what system you do use when you have "GiB".
It is not at all clear whether GB really means GB.

To be intentionally ambiguous is not polite.

@drknut:
You want to change display to specific system because ... ?

Alas you you are right, it is indeed impolite to be intentional ambiguous, that said 7% is trivial when you are are talking about GB and TB numbers that are so large that the average person can not wrap their brain around how large the number actually is. A Metric GB is 1 followed by 9 0's a Metric TB is a 1 followed by 12 0's. And we are talking about a 500 GB HDD or SSD you are talking about a 5 followed by 11 0's. Say you are off by 7%. a 500 GB HDD or SSD is still talking about being off by a mere 3.5 GB.

A lot comes down to how we process information and what it means. MEMORY has always to the best of my knowledge used the BINARY Number 1024. Why? Because BINARY is how computers have always processed information -- in 1's and 0's. DATA STORAGE however is a different beast. Why? Because of HOW data is stored on the drive. Usually as KB or MB chunks for SPEED. You may be writing a very small file, that could be measured in 100's for bytes, but if the "chuck" is 1 KB or 1 MB the rest of that "chunk" is EMPTY space. This was the idea behind many of the DOS defreg tools -- putting all the parts of a file into consecutive blocks which would increase SPEED OF ACCESS to the file and freeing up the "Empty Space", at the expense of HDD wear and tear of the drive. Short of file packing, a "FULL" drive has a lot of wasted EMPTY space in it, greater than the 7% differential between Metric and Binary system. You also have to remember that with HDD's there are areas that have media ERRORS (BAD BLOCKS) that can not be written to. Even if you are are using GiB that does not mean you have 100% of the drive available.

So how big is the drive? A rough estimate is all that is necessary. 525 GB is easier to digest than 512.7 GB... or 513 if you round it UP or 512 if you round it DOWN. Numbers such as 1,5,10,25, 50, 75, and 100 are easy to understand as they tend to follow are monetary system: 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 1.00 or 1/100, 1/10, 1/4, 1/2, 100. So a 525 GB HDD is Aprox = 500 + 1/4 (25) -- EASY to understand and remember. 512.7 or 513, or 512 is a lot harder to understand and/or to remember. 7% is a rounding error at such large numbers. Just wait until be are talking about Petabytes (PB) and Exabytes (EB).

With the advent of the SSD which is closer to that of MEMORY rather than DISK STORAGE then *maybe* expressing capacity in terms of GiB rather than GB *may* make sense, that said MEMORY SIMMS are *always* expressed in terms of BINARY capacity, thus a 8GB SIMM means it holds 8.592 GB not 8 GB or 8.5 GB neither of which would be accurate.

As HDD's head towards the same graveyard as the 5.25" Floppy Disk and the 3.5": Floppy Disk, and other extinct hardware we need to re-think how to express Storage Capacity. Right now it is simply easier to say 1 GB = 1 GiB be it you use the Metric 1000 system or the Binary 1024 system. If the Binary system then the JEDEC system of GB has to be eliminated so that the Metric GB and the Binary GB don't get confused. But really when you are using such large number such as GB and TB for all practical purposes the Metric and Binary GB=GiB=GB are all one and the same -- one is an APPROXIMATION (Metric) and the other is an EXACT measure (Binary). For the Average Joe a GB is a GiB.