Long ago, storage manufacturers stopped selling their drives in sizes based on powers of two, and started using powers of ten because it makes the drives sound larger.
The argument was that SI prefixes denote power of ten and so therefore it was a correction despite decades of computing history using powers of 2 for storage. As a result the KiB, MiB, GiB, etc were brought in to denote power of two based sizes.
Note that 64GB of RAM is still 64×2³⁰ bytes of RAM which kinda blows that argument out of the water.
Iso recognizes with no i as base 2 for all memory including hdd. You can also put a disclaimer that the stupid unit with an i is actually in based 10 in the EU and U.S.
I’m legitimately a weirdo and only like my drive capacities to be in base 2; 2TB > 4 TB > 8TB > 16TB… I god I be waiting a long time before my next wholesale NAS upgrade!
I find 22T to be perfect. When formatted it is just a little over 20T making a satisfying total size round number.
It’s not formatting losses. It’s different units.
22TB = 20.009 TiB
Long ago, storage manufacturers stopped selling their drives in sizes based on powers of two, and started using powers of ten because it makes the drives sound larger.
The argument was that SI prefixes denote power of ten and so therefore it was a correction despite decades of computing history using powers of 2 for storage. As a result the KiB, MiB, GiB, etc were brought in to denote power of two based sizes.
Note that 64GB of RAM is still 64×2³⁰ bytes of RAM which kinda blows that argument out of the water.
Iso recognizes with no i as base 2 for all memory including hdd. You can also put a disclaimer that the stupid unit with an i is actually in based 10 in the EU and U.S.
I’m legitimately a weirdo and only like my drive capacities to be in base 2; 2TB > 4 TB > 8TB > 16TB… I god I be waiting a long time before my next wholesale NAS upgrade!
Oh yes I know this feeling. Even building new VM template it was always a ^2 disk size.