Re: Bandwidth calculations [7:65008]
Peter, as you have seen i stoped responding to this post, you really don't need to start a polimique about this, because yeas indeed K and k and the rest is so obvious that it does not need an explanation, i mean you don't need to be in IT to know thta, and + the person who asked the question was not asking about that so i don't where ur trying to go with this, and i personally don't care to offend any one cause i simply don't have the time for it, but obvious things are obvious and stay obvious no matter what u say Peter van Oene a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 01:36 PM 3/12/2003 +, Amar KHELIFI wrote: sorry i don't agree. check the bandwidth calculator on the net, u will see that i was correct. + for the K and k and B and b, it is so obvious that an explanation is not necessary... While I agree that Kb tends to refer to 1024 and kb to 1000, I will suggest that very few things are so obvious that they do not require explanation. If it truly did not require explanation, you would not be involved in a discussion revolving around the clarity of the expression, or otherwise you mean to suggest that your partner in the discussion is obtuse to to the point of missing the most obvious of points, which I think might be a little offensive. Pete thanx for letting my messages show up normally and then respond to them; s vermill a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I should also have mentioned that the B is typically capitalized along side the K when dealing with kilobytes (KB) and the b is typically not capitalized when dealing with kilobits (kbps). That's probably at least, if not more, significant than the K/k capitalization (if, in fact, any of it is significant). I mention it because it seems to cause so much confusion. You won't see it around here much, but at some other forums one of the chief complaints relates to achieving only 1/8th the expected download rate. What's happening, of course, is that the download is being measured in KB/sec while the connection is rated in kbits/sec. I'll shut up now... s vermill wrote: Amar KHELIFI wrote: since 1byte=8bits and 1Kbits=1024bits then 32kbps=32768bps=4096bytes there is no formula. Amar KHELIFI, 1kbits does not = 1024bits and 32kbps does not = 32768bps. 1kbps = 1,000bps 32kbps = 32000bps. k simply means 1,000. The whole idea of 1KB (KiloByte) = 1024 bits has to do with binary math and the fact that computers deal in bytes vs. bits. 2^10 = 1024, which is divisibly by 8 (whereas 1,000 would not be). It would be very inconvenient for a computer to have to deal with information blocks that are not divisible by 8. Modern communications systems are not byte-aligned at all and deal strictly in bits. For example, a DS0 is 64kbps. That's 64,000bps. As a side note, and I'm not sure that there's any official convention to go along with this, in general, a KiloByte is abbreviated KB, with a capital K. kilobits per second is generally abbreviated kbps, with a lower-case k. Thus, when you see a capital K, it's safe to assume 1024 is being implied, whereas when you see a lower-case k, it's safe to assume 1,000 is being implied. Regards, Scott Robert Perez a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyone know how the conversion techniques for converting bits, bytes, kilobits, etc, to calculate bandwidth usages? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65291t=65008 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bandwidth calculations [7:65008]
sorry i don't agree. check the bandwidth calculator on the net, u will see that i was correct. + for the K and k and B and b, it is so obvious that an explanation is not necessary... thanx for letting my messages show up normally and then respond to them; s vermill a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I should also have mentioned that the B is typically capitalized along side the K when dealing with kilobytes (KB) and the b is typically not capitalized when dealing with kilobits (kbps). That's probably at least, if not more, significant than the K/k capitalization (if, in fact, any of it is significant). I mention it because it seems to cause so much confusion. You won't see it around here much, but at some other forums one of the chief complaints relates to achieving only 1/8th the expected download rate. What's happening, of course, is that the download is being measured in KB/sec while the connection is rated in kbits/sec. I'll shut up now... s vermill wrote: Amar KHELIFI wrote: since 1byte=8bits and 1Kbits=1024bits then 32kbps=32768bps=4096bytes there is no formula. Amar KHELIFI, 1kbits does not = 1024bits and 32kbps does not = 32768bps. 1kbps = 1,000bps 32kbps = 32000bps. k simply means 1,000. The whole idea of 1KB (KiloByte) = 1024 bits has to do with binary math and the fact that computers deal in bytes vs. bits. 2^10 = 1024, which is divisibly by 8 (whereas 1,000 would not be). It would be very inconvenient for a computer to have to deal with information blocks that are not divisible by 8. Modern communications systems are not byte-aligned at all and deal strictly in bits. For example, a DS0 is 64kbps. That's 64,000bps. As a side note, and I'm not sure that there's any official convention to go along with this, in general, a KiloByte is abbreviated KB, with a capital K. kilobits per second is generally abbreviated kbps, with a lower-case k. Thus, when you see a capital K, it's safe to assume 1024 is being implied, whereas when you see a lower-case k, it's safe to assume 1,000 is being implied. Regards, Scott Robert Perez a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyone know how the conversion techniques for converting bits, bytes, kilobits, etc, to calculate bandwidth usages? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65153t=65008 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bandwidth calculations [7:65008]
Amar KHELIFI wrote: sorry i don't agree. check the bandwidth calculator on the net, u will see that i was correct. + for the K and k and B and b, it is so obvious that an explanation is not necessary... thanx for letting my messages show up normally and then respond to them; I don't know what bandwidth calculator you're talking about but I suspect it measures throughput based on bytes. That's fine (and is, in fact, exactly the source of confusion I was talking about). Computers deal in bytes and so they're interested in how many bytes per second they can download. But a WAN circuit, which has nothing to do with computers, doesn't care about bytes. It lives in a bit world. A 32kbps circuit operates at 32,000 bits per second. With a good many years designing, building, and troubleshooting WANs under my belt, I can say this with some authority. I've directly observed thousands of WAN circuits with WAN analyzers. I know what rates they operate at. But don't take my word for it. Study the Digital Plesiochronous Hierarchy for yourself. You will find that the basic WAN unit is a DS0, which operates at 64kbps. That's 64, bps. In North America, the next step up is the DS1. It consists of 24 DS0s multiplexed together plus 8 kbps overhead. Multiply 24 by 64,000 and add 8,000. You get 1,544,000 bps. Ever heard of that data rate? If not, you may be more familiar with the European system -- which also starts with a basic unit of 64,000 bps. Regardless of which hierarchy you look at, you'll find that the math doesn't add up according to your calculations. For example, 24 multiplied by 64 multiplied by 1024 plus 8kbps overhead would add up to 1,580,864bps. Most certainly not a DS1. s vermill a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I should also have mentioned that the B is typically capitalized along side the K when dealing with kilobytes (KB) and the b is typically not capitalized when dealing with kilobits (kbps). That's probably at least, if not more, significant than the K/k capitalization (if, in fact, any of it is significant). I mention it because it seems to cause so much confusion. You won't see it around here much, but at some other forums one of the chief complaints relates to achieving only 1/8th the expected download rate. What's happening, of course, is that the download is being measured in KB/sec while the connection is rated in kbits/sec. I'll shut up now... s vermill wrote: Amar KHELIFI wrote: since 1byte=8bits and 1Kbits=1024bits then 32kbps=32768bps=4096bytes there is no formula. Amar KHELIFI, 1kbits does not = 1024bits and 32kbps does not = 32768bps. 1kbps = 1,000bps 32kbps = 32000bps. k simply means 1,000. The whole idea of 1KB (KiloByte) = 1024 bits has to do with binary math and the fact that computers deal in bytes vs. bits. 2^10 = 1024, which is divisibly by 8 (whereas 1,000 would not be). It would be very inconvenient for a computer to have to deal with information blocks that are not divisible by 8. Modern communications systems are not byte-aligned at all and deal strictly in bits. For example, a DS0 is 64kbps. That's 64,000bps. As a side note, and I'm not sure that there's any official convention to go along with this, in general, a KiloByte is abbreviated KB, with a capital K. kilobits per second is generally abbreviated kbps, with a lower-case k. Thus, when you see a capital K, it's safe to assume 1024 is being implied, whereas when you see a lower-case k, it's safe to assume 1,000 is being implied. Regards, Scott Robert Perez a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyone know how the conversion techniques for converting bits, bytes, kilobits, etc, to calculate bandwidth usages? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65186t=65008 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bandwidth calculations [7:65008]
Amar KHELIFI wrote: sorry i don't agree. check the bandwidth calculator on the net, u will see that i was correct. + for the K and k and B and b, it is so obvious that an explanation is not necessary... thanx for letting my messages show up normally and then respond to them; Amar KHELFI, If you look at my original post, you will see that I was even guilty of mucking this all up. 1KB does not equal 1024 bits as I said, but rather 1024 _BYTES_. Again, 1024 vs. simply 1,000 in this case becuase of simple exponential math in computers/software. WAN links don't have that problem. A kbit, in terms of memory or storage, would be 1024 bits. But kbps, in terms of WAN capacity or rate, refers to 10^3 bits rather than 2^10 bits. I hope I now stand corrected... s vermill a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I should also have mentioned that the B is typically capitalized along side the K when dealing with kilobytes (KB) and the b is typically not capitalized when dealing with kilobits (kbps). That's probably at least, if not more, significant than the K/k capitalization (if, in fact, any of it is significant). I mention it because it seems to cause so much confusion. You won't see it around here much, but at some other forums one of the chief complaints relates to achieving only 1/8th the expected download rate. What's happening, of course, is that the download is being measured in KB/sec while the connection is rated in kbits/sec. I'll shut up now... s vermill wrote: Amar KHELIFI wrote: since 1byte=8bits and 1Kbits=1024bits then 32kbps=32768bps=4096bytes there is no formula. Amar KHELIFI, 1kbits does not = 1024bits and 32kbps does not = 32768bps. 1kbps = 1,000bps 32kbps = 32000bps. k simply means 1,000. The whole idea of 1KB (KiloByte) = 1024 bits has to do with binary math and the fact that computers deal in bytes vs. bits. 2^10 = 1024, which is divisibly by 8 (whereas 1,000 would not be). It would be very inconvenient for a computer to have to deal with information blocks that are not divisible by 8. Modern communications systems are not byte-aligned at all and deal strictly in bits. For example, a DS0 is 64kbps. That's 64,000bps. As a side note, and I'm not sure that there's any official convention to go along with this, in general, a KiloByte is abbreviated KB, with a capital K. kilobits per second is generally abbreviated kbps, with a lower-case k. Thus, when you see a capital K, it's safe to assume 1024 is being implied, whereas when you see a lower-case k, it's safe to assume 1,000 is being implied. Regards, Scott Robert Perez a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyone know how the conversion techniques for converting bits, bytes, kilobits, etc, to calculate bandwidth usages? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65197t=65008 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bandwidth calculations [7:65008]
At 01:36 PM 3/12/2003 +, Amar KHELIFI wrote: sorry i don't agree. check the bandwidth calculator on the net, u will see that i was correct. + for the K and k and B and b, it is so obvious that an explanation is not necessary... While I agree that Kb tends to refer to 1024 and kb to 1000, I will suggest that very few things are so obvious that they do not require explanation. If it truly did not require explanation, you would not be involved in a discussion revolving around the clarity of the expression, or otherwise you mean to suggest that your partner in the discussion is obtuse to to the point of missing the most obvious of points, which I think might be a little offensive. Pete thanx for letting my messages show up normally and then respond to them; s vermill a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I should also have mentioned that the B is typically capitalized along side the K when dealing with kilobytes (KB) and the b is typically not capitalized when dealing with kilobits (kbps). That's probably at least, if not more, significant than the K/k capitalization (if, in fact, any of it is significant). I mention it because it seems to cause so much confusion. You won't see it around here much, but at some other forums one of the chief complaints relates to achieving only 1/8th the expected download rate. What's happening, of course, is that the download is being measured in KB/sec while the connection is rated in kbits/sec. I'll shut up now... s vermill wrote: Amar KHELIFI wrote: since 1byte=8bits and 1Kbits=1024bits then 32kbps=32768bps=4096bytes there is no formula. Amar KHELIFI, 1kbits does not = 1024bits and 32kbps does not = 32768bps. 1kbps = 1,000bps 32kbps = 32000bps. k simply means 1,000. The whole idea of 1KB (KiloByte) = 1024 bits has to do with binary math and the fact that computers deal in bytes vs. bits. 2^10 = 1024, which is divisibly by 8 (whereas 1,000 would not be). It would be very inconvenient for a computer to have to deal with information blocks that are not divisible by 8. Modern communications systems are not byte-aligned at all and deal strictly in bits. For example, a DS0 is 64kbps. That's 64,000bps. As a side note, and I'm not sure that there's any official convention to go along with this, in general, a KiloByte is abbreviated KB, with a capital K. kilobits per second is generally abbreviated kbps, with a lower-case k. Thus, when you see a capital K, it's safe to assume 1024 is being implied, whereas when you see a lower-case k, it's safe to assume 1,000 is being implied. Regards, Scott Robert Perez a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyone know how the conversion techniques for converting bits, bytes, kilobits, etc, to calculate bandwidth usages? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65204t=65008 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bandwidth calculations [7:65008]
what do you mean by bandwidth useage? if you talking about baseband, the entire bandwidth is used. broadband of course would be calculated upon what spectrum range you're using. scott Robert Perez wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyone know how the conversion techniques for converting bits, bytes, kilobits, etc, to calculate bandwidth usages? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65084t=65008 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bandwidth calculations [7:65008]
Amar KHELIFI wrote: since 1byte=8bits and 1Kbits=1024bits then 32kbps=32768bps=4096bytes there is no formula. Amar KHELIFI, 1kbits does not = 1024bits and 32kbps does not = 32768bps. 1kbps = 1,000bps 32kbps = 32000bps. k simply means 1,000. The whole idea of 1KB (KiloByte) = 1024 bits has to do with binary math and the fact that computers deal in bytes vs. bits. 2^10 = 1024, which is divisibly by 8 (whereas 1,000 would not be). It would be very inconvenient for a computer to have to deal with information blocks that are not divisible by 8. Modern communications systems are not byte-aligned at all and deal strictly in bits. For example, a DS0 is 64kbps. That's 64,000bps. As a side note, and I'm not sure that there's any official convention to go along with this, in general, a KiloByte is abbreviated KB, with a capital K. kilobits per second is generally abbreviated kbps, with a lower-case k. Thus, when you see a capital K, it's safe to assume 1024 is being implied, whereas when you see a lower-case k, it's safe to assume 1,000 is being implied. Regards, Scott Robert Perez a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyone know how the conversion techniques for converting bits, bytes, kilobits, etc, to calculate bandwidth usages? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65089t=65008 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bandwidth calculations [7:65008]
I should also have mentioned that the B is typically capitalized along side the K when dealing with kilobytes (KB) and the b is typically not capitalized when dealing with kilobits (kbps). That's probably at least, if not more, significant than the K/k capitalization (if, in fact, any of it is significant). I mention it because it seems to cause so much confusion. You won't see it around here much, but at some other forums one of the chief complaints relates to achieving only 1/8th the expected download rate. What's happening, of course, is that the download is being measured in KB/sec while the connection is rated in kbits/sec. I'll shut up now... s vermill wrote: Amar KHELIFI wrote: since 1byte=8bits and 1Kbits=1024bits then 32kbps=32768bps=4096bytes there is no formula. Amar KHELIFI, 1kbits does not = 1024bits and 32kbps does not = 32768bps. 1kbps = 1,000bps 32kbps = 32000bps. k simply means 1,000. The whole idea of 1KB (KiloByte) = 1024 bits has to do with binary math and the fact that computers deal in bytes vs. bits. 2^10 = 1024, which is divisibly by 8 (whereas 1,000 would not be). It would be very inconvenient for a computer to have to deal with information blocks that are not divisible by 8. Modern communications systems are not byte-aligned at all and deal strictly in bits. For example, a DS0 is 64kbps. That's 64,000bps. As a side note, and I'm not sure that there's any official convention to go along with this, in general, a KiloByte is abbreviated KB, with a capital K. kilobits per second is generally abbreviated kbps, with a lower-case k. Thus, when you see a capital K, it's safe to assume 1024 is being implied, whereas when you see a lower-case k, it's safe to assume 1,000 is being implied. Regards, Scott Robert Perez a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyone know how the conversion techniques for converting bits, bytes, kilobits, etc, to calculate bandwidth usages? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65102t=65008 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
