[opensuse] USB 2.0 external hard drives
I looking to buy an external hard drive to backup (not archive) my laptop. It has USB 2.0. I am looking for a desktop solution, i.e., don't need nor want to pay for portable powered USB drives. Capacity 80GB to 160GB range. Any recommendations and/or condemnations? TIA, Jeffrey -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 01 May 2007 08:26:12 am Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
I looking to buy an external hard drive to backup (not archive) my laptop. It has USB 2.0. I am looking for a desktop solution, i.e., don't need nor want to pay for portable powered USB drives. Capacity 80GB to 160GB range. Any recommendations and/or condemnations?
I have a few. I use them for backups. The most recent one I got was from Fry's. I bought a 300 GB (that's using the "new" term for GB) drive and a Linksys enclosure for around $120 combined. I ended up formatting it with FAT32. When doing a backup of my laptop or my desktops, I noticed I'm getting very fast speeds. -- kai Free Compean and Ramos http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp http://www.perfectreign.com/?q=node/46 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 5/1/07, Kai Ponte <kai@perfectreign.com> wrote:
On Tuesday 01 May 2007 08:26:12 am Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
I looking to buy an external hard drive to backup (not archive) my laptop. It has USB 2.0. I am looking for a desktop solution, i.e., don't need nor want to pay for portable powered USB drives. Capacity 80GB to 160GB range. Any recommendations and/or condemnations?
I have a few. I use them for backups.
The most recent one I got was from Fry's. I bought a 300 GB (that's using the "new" term for GB) drive and a Linksys enclosure for around $120 combined.
I ended up formatting it with FAT32.
I had someone fairly knowledgeable tell me that in the real world they are seeing problems when using FAT32 on 500GB and above drives. We've been using FAT32 for all our external drives too, but we are initiating the process of deciding if we want to go to EXT2 or NTFS for the future. I looked into this 2 or 3 years ago and did not feel comfortable going either way at that time so we stayed with FAT. But compatible drivers seem to have improved in both directions since then. Greg -- Greg Freemyer The Norcross Group Forensics for the 21st Century -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, May 1, 2007 17:22, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On 5/1/07, Kai Ponte <kai@perfectreign.com> wrote:
I ended up formatting it with FAT32.
I had someone fairly knowledgeable tell me that in the real world they are seeing problems when using FAT32 on 500GB and above drives. We've been using FAT32 for all our external drives too, but we are initiating the process of deciding if we want to go to EXT2 or NTFS for the future.
Unless you have to access the same drive from Windows, I would seriously avoid using FAT32. You are making backups because you value your data, after all.... :-) I'd much rather use ext3 if you need to read it from Windows. There is a driver called ifs2 or something like that, and Total Commander has had an ext2 driver for ages. They will both read ext3 but ignore the journal. I'm actually seriously considering going for one of these consumer network storage setups. This looks good but I have yet to figure out in what way the network connection work - if it's running samba internally or what: http://www.iomega-europe.com/item?SID=48661c9266d010983d95b9b4f405cd37737:4735&sku=131433681 Hans -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hans du Plooy wrote:
I'm actually seriously considering going for one of these consumer network storage setups. This looks good but I have yet to figure out in what way the network connection work - if it's running samba internally or what:
are they gigabit ethernet? if not, this will be dawn slow :-( jdd -- http://www.dodin.net Cécile, esthéticienne à Montpellier http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Tuesday 2007-05-01 at 18:56 +0200, jdd wrote:
Hans du Plooy wrote:
I'm actually seriously considering going for one of these consumer network storage setups. This looks good but I have yet to figure out in what way the network connection work - if it's running samba internally or what:
are they gigabit ethernet? if not, this will be dawn slow :-(
Why? At 100 Mbits/s they should be faster than usb non 2.0, ie, 12 Mbit/s. My PC doesn't have usb 2.0, so those network things are faster than usb. And some of those boxes have three interfaces: network, usb, and firewire. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGOJYvtTMYHG2NR9URAoG3AKCELGk6bunJq2uY3IPgw5V8maV5LQCeKBF4 iPO0YJZvZn+UYLm3A6YBjM4= =kFLt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
Why? At 100 Mbits/s they should be faster than usb non 2.0, ie, 12 Mbit/s.
give, there is no other thing on the net (or a good switch) ie no dvd dl :-)
My PC doesn't have usb 2.0, so those network things are faster than usb.
usb 2 is now 4 or 5 years old and available on addon cards, not usefull only for backup :-)
And some of those boxes have three interfaces: network, usb, and firewire.
well... I can use USB2 for video capture (it's nearly as fast as the original disk), certainly not network. given this the network gigabit is pretty cheap nowaday, and I would already use it if all my house was not wired on cat 5, too slow :-( if you can have gigabit, take it, you will be glad :-) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net Cécile, esthéticienne à Montpellier http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
AFAIK FAT32 has an upper limit of 127GB. which means you need lots of partitions.
I have a usb disk I was trying to copy some linux distro iso's to, while it was format with FAT32, and it would go up to 4 GB + and stop saying file size limit was exceeded. For me that made it useless as a lot of the file I have are larger than 4 GB. You will need to reformat the disk to ext2,ext3 etc. which will make it problematic if you want your windows and mac pcs to mount it automatically. You have to evaluate carefully... HTH George -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
George Stoianov wrote:
AFAIK FAT32 has an upper limit of 127GB. which means you need lots of partitions.
I have a usb disk I was trying to copy some linux distro iso's to, while it was format with FAT32, and it would go up to 4 GB + and stop saying file size limit was exceeded. For me that made it useless as a lot of the file I have are larger than 4 GB. You will need to reformat the disk to ext2,ext3 etc. which will make it problematic if you want your windows and mac pcs to mount it automatically. You have to evaluate carefully...
HTH George You hae to be careful between file system and file size. I believe that FAT32 only allows a maximum of 4 GBytes. You can have many filex within the filesystem.
-- Joseph Loo jloo@acm.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hi, Does anyone know if there is a parameter that can be passed to the ssh daemon to pause (x) number of seconds between failed logins?? Thanks for any feedback. Otto Rodusek. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 5/3/07, Otto Rodusek (AP-SGP) <otto@applied.com.sg> wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know if there is a parameter that can be passed to the ssh daemon to pause (x) number of seconds between failed logins??
yast -> system -> /etc/sysconfig editor -> Network -> Firewall -> SuSEfirewall2 -> FW_SERVICES_ACCEPT_EXT See the example: "0/0,tcp,22,,hitcount=3,blockseconds=60,recentname=ssh" will allow 3 attempts from same ip in 60 seconds. _ Benjamin Weber -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Benji Weber wrote:
On 5/3/07, Otto Rodusek (AP-SGP) <otto@applied.com.sg> wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know if there is a parameter that can be passed to the ssh daemon to pause (x) number of seconds between failed logins??
yast -> system -> /etc/sysconfig editor -> Network -> Firewall -> SuSEfirewall2 -> FW_SERVICES_ACCEPT_EXT
See the example: "0/0,tcp,22,,hitcount=3,blockseconds=60,recentname=ssh" will allow 3 attempts from same ip in 60 seconds.
_ Benjamin Weber Thanks Benjamin. I'll try that. Rgds. Otto. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Wednesday 2007-05-02 at 15:58 +0200, jdd wrote:
My PC doesn't have usb 2.0, so those network things are faster than usb.
usb 2 is now 4 or 5 years old and available on addon cards, not usefull only for backup :-)
I know, I know, but I don't have dozens of PCI sockets. Only three.
And some of those boxes have three interfaces: network, usb, and firewire.
well... I can use USB2 for video capture (it's nearly as fast as the original disk), certainly not network.
given this the network gigabit is pretty cheap nowaday, and I would already use it if all my house was not wired on cat 5, too slow :-(
if you can have gigabit, take it, you will be glad :-)
My router is 100 Mbit, so it's no use; same as my other PC, and those of my "visitors". In my particular case, a network disk is interesting, if I can find it nice, cheap, and good. Otherwise, usb is not bad either, even if I have to wait longer than you ;-) Can't have everything state of the art. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGOSq6tTMYHG2NR9URAthRAJ9I1WPr7huNBUZ+6tgIFMyZawJBMQCeN9cH BFkKg0odGUqtHbYDhyOrzuQ= =7slC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
if you can have gigabit, take it, you will be glad :-)
My router is 100 Mbit, so it's no use; same as my other PC, and those of my "visitors".
I'm in the same situation, but think this kind of HW i here for long time, you will probably have a gigabit router anytime soon :-) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net Cécile, esthéticienne à Montpellier http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Wednesday 2007-05-02 at 15:58 +0200, jdd wrote:
My PC doesn't have usb 2.0, so those network things are faster than usb. usb 2 is now 4 or 5 years old and available on addon cards, not usefull only for backup :-)
I know, I know, but I don't have dozens of PCI sockets. Only three.
And some of those boxes have three interfaces: network, usb, and firewire. well... I can use USB2 for video capture (it's nearly as fast as the original disk), certainly not network.
given this the network gigabit is pretty cheap nowaday, and I would already use it if all my house was not wired on cat 5, too slow :-(
if you can have gigabit, take it, you will be glad :-)
My router is 100 Mbit, so it's no use; same as my other PC, and those of my "visitors".
In my particular case, a network disk is interesting, if I can find it nice, cheap, and good. Otherwise, usb is not bad either, even if I have to wait longer than you ;-)
Can't have everything state of the art.
And you do not need to. Use for example rsnapshot for your backup purposes and after the initial "full backup", taking a while, the rest is a snap, even with the slowest possible connection type. regards Eberhard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Thursday 2007-05-03 at 17:58 +0200, Eberhard Roloff wrote:
Can't have everything state of the art.
And you do not need to. Use for example rsnapshot for your backup purposes and after the initial "full backup", taking a while, the rest is a snap, even with the slowest possible connection type.
I didn't know that one. Seems similar to rdiff-backup. I would prefer something similar, but storing in compressed form as well. But you see, without usb 2.0, an ethernet box at 100 Mbit/s is starting to be interesting, because it is faster, and relatively cheap now. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGOn2NtTMYHG2NR9URAsaTAJ9T8XdepBIalbNgILsysU6dllGkoACfcHGY 6rstItRM48TtNrCl2A6UA4E= =2AUD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 01 May 2007 09:22:43 am Greg Freemyer wrote:
On 5/1/07, Kai Ponte <kai@perfectreign.com> wrote:
On Tuesday 01 May 2007 08:26:12 am Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
I looking to buy an external hard drive to backup (not archive) my laptop. It has USB 2.0. I am looking for a desktop solution, i.e., don't need nor want to pay for portable powered USB drives. Capacity 80GB to 160GB range. Any recommendations and/or condemnations?
I have a few. I use them for backups.
The most recent one I got was from Fry's. I bought a 300 GB (that's using the "new" term for GB) drive and a Linksys enclosure for around $120 combined.
I ended up formatting it with FAT32.
I had someone fairly knowledgeable tell me that in the real world they are seeing problems when using FAT32 on 500GB and above drives. We've been using FAT32 for all our external drives too, but we are initiating the process of deciding if we want to go to EXT2 or NTFS for the future.
I looked into this 2 or 3 years ago and did not feel comfortable going either way at that time so we stayed with FAT. But compatible drivers seem to have improved in both directions since then.
I have one drive (160GB) formatted with Reiser. It is painfully slow to access and update. It does transfer fast. I've also got rfsgui32 loaded on my expee and 2K machines. I just remember someone mentioning that FAT32 - when formatted through SUSE - is pretty good. So far, no problems. I might try EXT3, though, as my Wintendo machines are becoming fewer and fewer. I might even buy a Dell next time, now that they provide Ubuntu pre-loaded. (Of course, I wonder where I'm going to find the Trial AOL icon.) -- kai Free Compean and Ramos http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp http://www.perfectreign.com/?q=node/46 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
|I had someone fairly knowledgeable tell me that in the real |world they are seeing problems when using FAT32 on 500GB and |above drives. We've been using FAT32 for all our external |drives too, but we are initiating the process of deciding if |we want to go to EXT2 or NTFS for the future. | |I looked into this 2 or 3 years ago and did not feel |comfortable going either way at that time so we stayed with |FAT. But compatible drivers seem to have improved in both |directions since then. | AFAIK FAT32 has an upper limit of 127GB. which means you need lots of partitions. Fat is the worst filesystem out there. Anything else is better. If you need windows portability, sharing it via samba from a server is a reliable option. Samba also supports windows acl well, if you want more than default windows filesystem security (everybody can read everything). Maybe the write-ntfs patch will fix this? When it comes to hard-disk of Choice the Samsung Spinpoint 500GB is great. It has the lowest surface temperature of all the 500GB disks, which means you can put it in an external non-fan box. The more platters and rpms the higher the temperature. Most newer disks of today can transfer more than 60MB/s which is the upper theoretical bandwidth limit of usb2. -- MortenB -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
--- Morten Bjørnsvik <morten.bjornsvik@experian-scorex.no> wrote:
AFAIK FAT32 has an upper limit of 127GB. which means you need lots of partitions.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/154997 FAT32 supports drives up to 2 terabytes in size. It would appear you do not know. As it only took a few seconds to get the correct information, were you too busy even for that? It must have taken you more time to type up the incorrect information, than it took me to find the above. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't waste everybody's time with your misinformation. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
AFAIK FAT32 has an upper limit of 127GB. which means you need lots of partitions.
This is an artifact of Microsoft's brilliant choices. Windows was shipped with the registry setting for Large Drive Support turned off... thus the 127 GB limitation. You could get around this by changing the registry setting, thereby enabling you to format a single partition larger than 127 GB.... or you could install Linux which didn't have this brain dead setting, and is not limited by BIOS knowledge of drives over a predetermined size. :-) I have no idea if this is still an issue with XP SP2. Windows only supports creating FAT32 partitions up to 32GB (although they can read/write FAT32 partitions over 32GB) FAT32 has a file size limitation... you cannot write a single file larger than 4GB... so your 8GB double layer DVD ISOs cannot be stored on a FAT32 partition. C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Wednesday 2007-05-02 at 10:01 +0200, Morten Bjørnsvik wrote:
AFAIK FAT32 has an upper limit of 127GB. which means you need lots of partitions.
What? Acording to the wikipedia, the limit is 8 Tera bibytes (8 TiB) - although if you format it from windows the limit is lower: | In theory, this should support a total of approximately 268,435,456 | (2^28) clusters, allowing for drive sizes in the range of 8 tebibytes | with 32K clusters. On Windows 95/98, due to the version of Microsoft's | ScanDisk utility included with these operating systems being a 16-bit | application, the FAT structure is not allowed to grow beyond 4,177,920 | (< 2^22) clusters, placing the volume limit at 127.53 gigabytes.[4]. A | limitation in original versions of Windows 98/98SE's Fdisk causes it to | incorrectly report disk sizes over 64GB.[5] A corrected version is | available from Microsoft. These limitations do not apply to Windows | 2000/XP except during Setup, in which there is a 32GB limit.[6] Windows | ME supports the FAT32 file system without any limits.[7] - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGOJhTtTMYHG2NR9URAkLTAJ4wrk2Qm5h2dd1g7B35t+Rje6P4tACgiotq IuN47hRLJqtyF/l3mlN5nG4= =fwFE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Tuesday 2007-05-01 at 08:48 -0700, Kai Ponte wrote:
I bought a 300 GB (that's using the "new" term for GB) drive and a Linksys enclosure for around $120 combined.
300 _GB_ is the correct naming, as the prefix Giga meaning 10^9 is way older than the "mistaken" computer parlance meaning of 2^30. This second meaning should use instead the new standard GiB (gibibite). Hard disk manufacturers have been using the "correct" term for disk sizes for many years, although I guess not because it is correct, but because it yields bigger numbers for the same actual size ;-) - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGOJn1tTMYHG2NR9URAs45AKCGJ79hef3OknVxy/LgzwVleZUyqgCfXvRC amrFZMVY09phmipzNBwWGMw= =vyUF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On May 02, 2007 04:02 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
300 _GB_ is the correct naming, as the prefix Giga meaning 10^9 is way older than the "mistaken" computer parlance meaning of 2^30. This second meaning should use instead the new standard GiB (gibibite).
I think a byte is always 2^8, no matter what. So, a GB referenced as (2^8) * 10^9 sounds kinda odd, especially when you historically talk about kilobyte as 1024 (2^10) and a megabyte as 1024*1024 (2^20). =) ----------------------------------------- Aegroto, dum anima est, spes esse dicitur Powered by Open-Xchange.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Wednesday 2007-05-02 at 16:40 +0200, Örn Hansen wrote:
300 _GB_ is the correct naming, as the prefix Giga meaning 10^9 is way older than the "mistaken" computer parlance meaning of 2^30. This second meaning should use instead the new standard GiB (gibibite).
I think a byte is always 2^8, no matter what. So, a GB referenced as (2^8) * 10^9 sounds kinda odd, especially when you historically talk about kilobyte as 1024 (2^10) and a megabyte as 1024*1024 (2^20). =)
Yes, it sounds odd, but nevertheless, it is the correct usage now (IEEE 1541). The "classic" G (GB) in computer parlance has changed to Gi (GiB, to diferentiate from the G prefix as used in all the rest of units in the SI. The byte remains the same. The change is in the prefixes. "Gi" is read "gibi", meaning 2³⁰. "G" means 10⁹. This way there is no ambiguity. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGOL/QtTMYHG2NR9URAn3ZAJ9DojG42ow5/9MGPy1WDCcw4svpngCghwY6 M5cynJBmA+kmgPMU3HBxwWA= =805B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Quoting "Carlos E. R." <robin.listas@telefonica.net>:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The Wednesday 2007-05-02 at 16:40 +0200, Örn Hansen wrote:
300 _GB_ is the correct naming, as the prefix Giga meaning 10^9 is way older than the "mistaken" computer parlance meaning of 2^30. This second meaning should use instead the new standard GiB (gibibite).
I think a byte is always 2^8, no matter what. So, a GB referenced as (2^8) * 10^9 sounds kinda odd, especially when you historically talk about kilobyte as 1024 (2^10) and a megabyte as 1024*1024 (2^20). =)
Yes, it sounds odd, but nevertheless, it is the correct usage now (IEEE 1541). The "classic" G (GB) in computer parlance has changed to Gi (GiB, to diferentiate from the G prefix as used in all the rest of units in the SI.
The byte remains the same. The change is in the prefixes. "Gi" is read "gibi", meaning 2³?. "G" means 10?. This way there is no ambiguity.
That is fascinating. I wasn't aware there was an actual change. I just figured the hard drive manufacturers were just trying to pull the wool over our collective eyes. So, now my memory management documentation is all wrong? I no longer have 4K of memory in my TRS-80? :P -- kai ponte www.perfectreign.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Wednesday 2007-05-02 at 11:00 -0700, Kai Ponte wrote:
Quoting "Carlos E. R." <>:
That is fascinating. I wasn't aware there was an actual change. I just figured the hard drive manufacturers were just trying to pull the wool over our collective eyes.
They do, of course! It just happens to be correct - now. It wasn't correct some years back, but they did none the less. Many people have being caught that way, and when they tried their brand new 80 MB HD the OS said was only 76.2 MB! And some of them wanted to return the disks as faulty... (My example is 80 MB to show how old is the problem... my HD was 84MB, ie, 80 MB, or rather, 80 MiB) This problem would have never happened if computer people did not misappropriate the K, M, G prefix changing the long time established meaning. I learnt about the kibi, mebi, gibi... prefixes very recently. Ie, I'm a recent convert, and like most converts I try to get more converts to redeem myself ;-)
So, now my memory management documentation is all wrong? I no longer have 4K of memory in my TRS-80? :P
ROTFL! X'-) No, it isn't politically correct now :-P - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGOO05tTMYHG2NR9URAqYgAJ9BDYr5/d1idR7ifee03B1a/MhnKACfdgyc a6DUSnUfbuLdiUg6+UznXIw= =ornP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 18:43 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The Wednesday 2007-05-02 at 16:40 +0200, Örn Hansen wrote:
300 _GB_ is the correct naming, as the prefix Giga meaning 10^9 is way older than the "mistaken" computer parlance meaning of 2^30. This second meaning should use instead the new standard GiB (gibibite).
I think a byte is always 2^8, no matter what. So, a GB referenced as (2^8) * 10^9 sounds kinda odd, especially when you historically talk about kilobyte as 1024 (2^10) and a megabyte as 1024*1024 (2^20). =)
Yes, it sounds odd, but nevertheless, it is the correct usage now (IEEE 1541). The "classic" G (GB) in computer parlance has changed to Gi (GiB, to diferentiate from the G prefix as used in all the rest of units in the SI.
The byte remains the same. The change is in the prefixes. "Gi" is read "gibi", meaning 2³⁰. "G" means 10⁹. This way there is no ambiguity.
Yes and be sure to pronounce them jibi and jigger (like in 'Back to the Future') rather than the common mispronunciation - Ghiga Giga is derived from the Greek gigas (giant) and gigantic is a derivative. The Greeks today pronouce it: yiga John O'Gorman
- -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFGOL/QtTMYHG2NR9URAn3ZAJ9DojG42ow5/9MGPy1WDCcw4svpngCghwY6 M5cynJBmA+kmgPMU3HBxwWA= =805B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Örn Hansen wrote:
I think a byte is always 2^8, no matter what.
Frayed knot! There were systems that used 6 bit bytes and probably other sizes too. -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
James Knott wrote:
Örn Hansen wrote:
I think a byte is always 2^8, no matter what.
Frayed knot! There were systems that used 6 bit bytes and probably other sizes too.
some count on nibbles (4 bits) and use ten bytes registers (HP-41 :-) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net Cécile, esthéticienne à Montpellier http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 15:07, James Knott wrote:
Örn Hansen wrote:
I think a byte is always 2^8, no matter what.
Frayed knot! There were systems that used 6 bit bytes and probably other sizes too.
10 bits per byte on some BBN machines, e.g. The 36-bit words on Univacs made them nine bits-per-byte, though they were not really byte-addressable, at least not back in the 80s. I don't know if they're still in use and if so whether they've been given byte addressability. RRS -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Let us not forget the 7bit byte on the DEC PDP10 (5 in a word with 1 bit extra), or the 9bit octet on Multics. When I first came across the term byte it referred to the size of a character, while our machine at the time had 6bit characters. ==John ffitch -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
James Knott wrote:
Örn Hansen wrote:
I think a byte is always 2^8, no matter what.
Frayed knot! There were systems that used 6 bit bytes and probably other sizes too.
Doubly frayed knot... Those aren't bytes, those are words. Wordsize may vary, but bytes are 8 bits. and nybbles are 4 bits. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Örn Hansen wrote:
I think a byte is always 2^8, no matter what. Frayed knot! There were systems that used 6 bit bytes and probably other sizes too.
Doubly frayed knot...
Those aren't bytes, those are words.
Wordsize may vary, but bytes are 8 bits. and nybbles are 4 bits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 15:32, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
...
Wordsize may vary, but bytes are 8 bits. and nybbles are 4 bits.
So say you. Reality differs.
this may be a translation problem... I see on wikipedia that the word "octet" can be used when 8 bits must be enforced, however "octet" in the french translation for "byte", so in french there is no difference between "byte" and "octet" (in fact I discover than "octet" can be used in english). what about other langages? may be the problem is only in english? jdd -- http://www.dodin.net Cécile, esthéticienne à Montpellier http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
But do not forget that the Multics, a French machine in later life (Machines Bull, had a 9-bit octet. Caused much amusement in my circles. ==John ffitch
"jdd" == jdd <jdd@dodin.org> writes:
jdd> Randall R Schulz wrote: jdd> this may be a translation problem... jdd> I see on wikipedia that the word "octet" can be used when 8 bits must jdd> be enforced, however "octet" in the french translation for "byte", so jdd> in french there is no difference between "byte" and "octet" (in fact I jdd> discover than "octet" can be used in english). jdd> what about other langages? may be the problem is only in english? jdd> jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
jpff wrote:
But do not forget that the Multics, a French machine in later life (Machines Bull, had a 9-bit octet. Caused much amusement in my circles.
weel, the name "octet" coming from "octal", I hope the ninth is only a parity control :-) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net Cécile, esthéticienne à Montpellier http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2007-05-07 at 08:07 +0200, jdd wrote:
Wordsize may vary, but bytes are 8 bits. and nybbles are 4 bits.
So say you. Reality differs.
this may be a translation problem...
The definition varies acording to who makes them. One definition could be the smallest group of bits the CPU adresses at a time; in modern computers that is 8 bits. for instance: - From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]: byte n : a sequence of 8 bits (enough to represent one character of alphanumeric data) processed as a single unit of information - From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03) [foldoc]: byte <unit> /bi:t/ (B) A component in the machine {data hierarchy} usually larger than a {bit} and smaller than a {word}; now most often eight bits and the smallest addressable unit of storage. A byte typically holds one {character}. A byte may be 9 bits on 36-bit computers. Some older architectures used "byte" for quantities of 6 or 7 bits, and the PDP-10 and IBM 7030 supported "bytes" that were actually {bit-fields} of 1 to 36 (or 64) bits! These usages are now obsolete, and even 9-bit bytes have become rare in the general trend toward power-of-2 word sizes. The term was coined by Werner Buchholz in 1956 during the early design phase for the {IBM} {Stretch} computer. It was a mutation of the word "bite" intended to avoid confusion with "bit". In 1962 he described it as "a group of bits used to encode a character, or the number of bits transmitted in parallel to and from input-output units". The move to an 8-bit byte happened in late 1956, and this size was later adopted and promulgated as a standard by the {System/360} {operating system} (announced April 1964). James S. Jones <> adds: I am sure I read in a mid-1970's brochure by IBM that outlined the history of computers that BYTE was an acronym that stood for "Bit asYnchronous Transmission E__?__" which related to width of the bus between the Stretch CPU and its CRT-memory (prior to Core). Terry Carr <> says: In the early days IBM taught that a series of bits transferred together (like so many yoked oxen) formed a Binary Yoked Transfer Element (BYTE).
what about other langages? may be the problem is only in english?
No, the problem arises when experts from several generations talk together ;-) - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFGPxVotTMYHG2NR9URAm4lAJ9ZpPT5X0VSWUaOQ5L5L7e97U7j7QCeKFF+ QCXLB7czF2wlouSFEPQrll4= =garM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
jdd wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 15:32, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
...
Wordsize may vary, but bytes are 8 bits. and nybbles are 4 bits.
So say you. Reality differs.
this may be a translation problem...
I see on wikipedia that the word "octet" can be used when 8 bits must be enforced, however "octet" in the french translation for "byte", so in french there is no difference between "byte" and "octet" (in fact I discover than "octet" can be used in english).
what about other langages? may be the problem is only in english?
jdd
Actually there is a difference between a byte and an octet. A byte can be 6, 7, 8, or 9 bits. An octet is defined as an 8 bit byte. It is defined via CCITT I think I got the telecounication standards correct. -- Joseph Loo jloo@acm.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Joseph Loo wrote:
jdd wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 15:32, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
...
Wordsize may vary, but bytes are 8 bits. and nybbles are 4 bits.
So say you. Reality differs.
this may be a translation problem...
I see on wikipedia that the word "octet" can be used when 8 bits must be enforced, however "octet" in the french translation for "byte", so in french there is no difference between "byte" and "octet" (in fact I discover than "octet" can be used in english).
what about other langages? may be the problem is only in english?
jdd
Actually there is a difference between a byte and an octet. A byte can be 6, 7, 8, or 9 bits. An octet is defined as an 8 bit byte. It is defined via CCITT I think I got the telecounication standards correct.
CCITT is obsolete. It's now ITU. -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Quoting Aaron Kulkis <akulkis3@hotpop.com>:
James Knott wrote:
Örn Hansen wrote:
I think a byte is always 2^8, no matter what.
Frayed knot! There were systems that used 6 bit bytes and probably other sizes too.
Doubly frayed knot...
Those aren't bytes, those are words.
Wordsize may vary, but bytes are 8 bits. and nybbles are 4 bits.
Bytes were 6, or 8, or possibly others. A byte was a character, 6 bits for BCD, 8 bits for EBCDIC and ASCII. I know, I was there. Now, 6 bit words, I never saw any of them. IIRC, 12 bit words was the smallest I ever saw. Jeffrey Registered Old Fart/Greybeard Programming since before there were ICs (ie. 1967) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
Quoting Aaron Kulkis <akulkis3@hotpop.com>:
James Knott wrote:
Örn Hansen wrote:
I think a byte is always 2^8, no matter what.
Frayed knot! There were systems that used 6 bit bytes and probably other sizes too.
Doubly frayed knot...
Those aren't bytes, those are words.
Wordsize may vary, but bytes are 8 bits. and nybbles are 4 bits.
Bytes were 6, or 8, or possibly others. A byte was a character, 6 bits for BCD, 8 bits for EBCDIC and ASCII. I know, I was there. Now, 6 bit words, I never saw any of them. IIRC, 12 bit words was the smallest I ever saw.
Many microprocessors are 4 bit, when used for such things as calculators etc., that don't need 8 bits. The very first microprocessor, the Intel 4004 was 4 bits. The 8 bit CPU's also have an 8 bit word. -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
It had to be said..... I worked on the Burroughs B1700 which has a 1bit word; it was bit addressable and as a soft machine the programmer could select whatever virtual word length they liked. I remember the other LISP team changing from 22 to 23 bits one day. There was an advantage to 24 bit virtual words, but at its heart it was a 1bit machine. ==John ffitch -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
jpff wrote:
It had to be said..... I worked on the Burroughs B1700 which has a 1bit word; it was bit addressable and as a soft machine the programmer could select whatever virtual word length they liked. I remember the other LISP team changing from 22 to 23 bits one day. There was an advantage to 24 bit virtual words, but at its heart it was a 1bit machine. ==John ffitch
Anyone here with a 2 bit computer? ;-) -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
* James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> [05-07-07 10:42]: [...]
Anyone here with a 2 bit computer? ;-)
And change :^) -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 OpenSUSE Linux http://en.opensuse.org/ Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 07 May 2007 07:41, James Knott wrote:
jpff wrote:
It had to be said..... I worked on the Burroughs B1700 which has a 1bit word; it was bit addressable and as a soft machine the programmer could select whatever virtual word length they liked. I remember the other LISP team changing from 22 to 23 bits one day. There was an advantage to 24 bit virtual words, but at its heart it was a 1bit machine. ==John ffitch
Anyone here with a 2 bit computer? ;-)
You remind me of Harry martin's description of Windows 95 - to wit: Windows 95:n. 1 Global Virus 2. 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell written for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition. Bob -- bob@rsmits.ca "I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need an interpreter." -InfoWorld Editor Nicholas Petreley -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
I looking to buy an external hard drive to backup (not archive) my laptop. It has USB 2.0. I am looking for a desktop solution, i.e., don't need nor want to pay for portable powered USB drives. Capacity 80GB to 160GB range. Any recommendations and/or condemnations?
external on what kind? if not usb, must be scsi? may be ata? as of the file system, ext3 is a very good choice, and can be read even from XP if necessary (there is a native XP driver for ext3) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net Cécile, esthéticienne à Montpellier http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 01 May 2007, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
I looking to buy an external hard drive to backup (not archive) my laptop. It has USB 2.0. I am looking for a desktop solution, i.e., don't need nor want to pay for portable powered USB drives. Capacity 80GB to 160GB range. Any recommendations and/or condemnations?
TIA, Jeffrey
I've had very good luck with "MyBook", from Western Digital. (160 gig, arrived as Fat32, since migrated to Reiserfs). -- _____________________________________ John Andersen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 10:26 -0500, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
I looking to buy an external hard drive to backup (not archive) my laptop. It has USB 2.0. I am looking for a desktop solution, i.e., don't need nor want to pay for portable powered USB drives. Capacity 80GB to 160GB range. Any recommendations and/or condemnations?
I have had some experience (not all good) with CoolGear Boxes. They are a US company and I had to obtain them through a colleague resident in the US as they didn't seem to have distribution channels to NZ or provision for international purchase via the web. The earlier boxes proved marginal in operation drawing their USB current from the server. This has been fixed in later offerings. When I googled for coolgear recently, their website did not list the boxes I have among their products. They had a variety of offerings. My choice was a 2 tray box, with a single USB2.0 connector. Each try is keylocked and is levered into the box where a SCSI physical connector is used (even with IDE or SATA drives). The backplane has hotplug circuitry. The trays are proprietary. They have different boxes for IDE (my choice), or SATA, or SCSI. You cannot remove them except by turning the key (which disconnect power from the tray). My purpose was to use the USB boxes as replacements for obsolescent Tandberg SLR24 tape drives. The IDE choice is the cheapest. My hopes to use them on a client site foundered on SUSE 9.0's unpredictable and inhumanly named mount points. It wasn't an easy option to upgrade the SUSE as they had proprietary Informix software. I have now nearly completed the upgrade for them on a 2nd machine and will change them over to using the USB drives as archive and tape options. I hope to write scripts which will check that the devices are mounted then call the appropriate commands (tar and ontape) to complete the archive and backup. I have found performance disappointing (probably a side-effect of the sync mount option) compared with the tape drives. But it is a cheap solution and the IDE entry level HDDs are readily available.
TIA, Jeffrey
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (23)
-
Aaron Kulkis -
Benji Weber -
Carlos E. R. -
Clayton -
Eberhard Roloff -
frank nelson -
George Stoianov -
Greg Freemyer -
Hans du Plooy -
James Knott -
jdd -
Jeffrey L. Taylor -
John Andersen -
John O'Gorman -
Joseph Loo -
jpff -
Kai Ponte -
Morten Bjørnsvik -
Otto Rodusek (AP-SGP) -
Patrick Shanahan -
Randall R Schulz -
Robert Smits -
Örn Hansen