Marc Thach Xuan Ky wrote: > > This is all very well but sometimes when people write 500 they > really > mean 512, so where does that leave you ?8-) > Marc
Trying to pull my own hair out whilst wearing a straight jacket? > > s vermill wrote: > > > > Here's a perfectly illustrative example of how common it is > to jumble all > > this terminology up... > > > > I often use a download test site at PC Pitstop: > > > > http://www.pcpitstop.com/internet/Bandwidth.asp > > > > I ran a quick download test that transferred a "500 KB" block > of text to my > > machine. It took 2.744 seconds to complete. Thus, the > result was returned > > as "1458 Kb/s." Here's the math: > > > > (assuming decimal) > > > > 500 * 1000 * 8 = 4,000,000 bits / 2.77 seconds = ~1,458,000 > bits/sec = ~1458 > > decimal kbits/sec or ~1423 binary Kbits/sec > > > > Now... > > > > (assuming binary) > > > > 500 * 1024 * 8 = 4,096,000 bits / 2.77 seconds = ~1,478,000 > bits/sec = ~1478 > > decimal kbits/sec or ~1443 binary Kbits/sec > > > > So, in spite of the fact that they are using the binary > upper-case K > > throughout, they are obviously meaning the decimal lower-case > k, which > > makes sense given that throughput is expressed that way. > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65332&t=65211 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
