[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Excessive bandwidth use

Roger Dingledine wrote:
>> So just so we make sure we're on the same page here, when the docs say
>> "K" you mean 1000, and when you say "M" you mean 1,000,000, right? Or
>> are you "one of those people" who count bytes in a little over the
>> metric meaning of the suffixes?
> K is 1<<10, and M is 1<<20.
You tell that to the people manufacturing hard disks.
>> All sarcasm aside, if the whole industry measures a quantity using a
>> certain unit, and one program measures it using another, I call that "a
>> usability bug".
> Right. Alas, I assure you there's a big community of people who'd be
> confused and upset if we went the other way too.
Taking my case as a usability test case, I did spot that deviation from
what I know when I read the docs. I just failed to remember it over
time. This brings to mind two possible solutions:
1. Have a global setting saying "bandwidth in bits"
2. Use a suffix (say - 1MB vs. 1Mb)

I think 1 is less confusing.
>  Most network things
> measure in bits, and most application things measure in bytes.
Being as it is that there is no possible way to change the meaning now
without breaking stuff, it doesn't matter whether I agree with the above
statement or not :-)
>  most (Windows) users measure application bandwidth in bytes.
I'll idly wonder what those admins do when they buy network equipment.
Like I said above - a moot point. I'm not suggesting we remove the byte
measurement at this stage.