Talk:Terabyte/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Centralization

Discussion about centralization took place at Talk:Binary prefix.

Why is this a seprate article??? —Noldoaran (Talk) 03:29, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Let's Not Confuse "Binary Prefix" with "SI Prefix"

I just spent the last hour or so repairing inconsistencies in the article in referencing the SI prefix and binary prefix, particularly in the "Quantities of Bytes" template. So sorry you had to work so hard, but thanks for the info.

The SI prefix refers to the modern-day metric system, in which one kilo-<unit> is equal to 1,000 <units>, one mega-<unit> is equal to 1,000 kilo-<units>, etc.

The binary prefix is similar to the metric system which uses "kilo" to denote a thousand, "mega" to denote a million, etc. However, the binary prefix (which is the correct way to denote the number of bits and bytes despite the fact that it is commonly misused and the subject of recent legal disputes) is based on a 2^n premise rather than 10^n; i.e. a "kilobyte" is 1024 bytes, not 1000; a "megabyte" is 1024 kilobytes, etc.

The IEC 60027-2 recently attempted to settle this dispute by declaring the commonly-used misuse to now be accurate because most people and businesses use it anyway. However, the authority of the International_Electrotechnical_Commission to unilaterally make this decision in defiance of long-held standards is largely disputed. --Kris Craig (67.183.207.37 06:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

Please read through binary prefix. I think you're misunderstanding something. The "commonly used misuse" is when kilo- = 1024. The IEC certainly did not declare it to be accurate. They said it was wrong and made a new prefix for such usage. The "correct way" to denote bits and bytes is with either a decimal SI prefix (100 kilobytes = 100,000 bytes) or a binary prefix (100 kibibytes = 102,400 bytes). One or the other is probably better, depending on the thing being measured. For instance, memory is always a power of two, so it lends itself to binary prefixes. Other things (hard drive sizes, data rates) don't have an inherent base, and are better measured with SI prefixes.

Also, this discussion should be on Template talk:Quantities of bytes; not here. — Omegatron 12:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, the IEC is not the sole authority on the matter, as I mentioned in my changes. The use of kilo- = 1024 was set by computer scientists and manufacturers long before they decided it was "wrong". And even then, it primarily in response to lobbying from hard drive manufacturers who wanted to overstate the disk capacity of their drives. My changes kept the IEC changes in the article, but put them into an accurate perspective. 67.183.207.37

kilo- has meant 1000 since the Greeks. It's fine to use kilo- = 1024 as an approximation or colloquialism, but it's definitely wrong where standards and precision are involved. It's expressly prohibited by the BIPM (SI), for instance. Our job is to report on things in an accurate way. The template and the article describe both the incorrect common usage and the more correct, but less common usage. Saying that the incorrect usage is the only usage is wrong and a form of advocacy, which we don't allow here.

Also, if you can provide any evidence whatsoever of an intentional "overstatement" of hard drive sizes by manufacturers, or of them "lobbying" for the IEC prefixes, I'd love to see it.

Please discuss changes to the template on the template's talk page, not here. — Omegatron 02:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think most people's problem with the IEC's creative retro-naming is the terms they came up with simply sound silly or stupid, like some noise a character on a TV show for pre-verbal infants would make. I got started with computers in 1983, I know what a kilobyte, megabyte etc are when it comes to the subject of computers. There's NO confusion, except in the minds of the IEC and others who want to cause it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 05:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no confusion? Based on what I see, there's plenty of confusion. There is no hardware-dependent reason to use 1,024 for anything other than word lengths and RAM; the SI units do not allow for a fudge factor. The SI system is designed to make things easier for people, not computers. Computers do math, they don't need us to make math easier for them rather than vice versa. 76.112.254.142 (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

number of bytes is NOT in the SI system. If it is, you should define a conversion from metre to byte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:281E:D300:B833:CFCA:7E2:5FE4 (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Despite what many people think, the BIPM do not have sole ownership or authority over the use of the terms "kilo", "mega", etc. These terms were used long before SI units were formalized in the 1960s. (Even though it really bothers the metric worshippers no-end when the terms kilofeet and megaton are used :))

SI units were defined to quantify *physical, measurable* quantities such as distance, time, etc. - rather than abstract quantities such as units of data storage. Claiming that a kilobyte is 1,000 bytes "because the SI said so" is misleading. 81.105.172.225 (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Origins of SI prefixes

66.32.123.29 commented on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention that the origins of the prefixes for terabyte, yottabyte and zettabyte are in some doubt. Particularly, whether 'tera' is derived from the Greek 'teras' (monster), or Greek 'tetra' (four), and similarly, I assume, whether 'zetta' is from the Latin alphabet 'zeta' or a distortion of Latin 'septem' (seven). Anyhow, dictionary.com has septem and octo roots for zetta and yotta, but another site claims that zetta and yotta were used due to a decision by the General Conference of Weights and Measures to use descending letters from the Latin alphabet, starting at the end (zeta). Anyone know the correct etymology for these? -- Wapcaplet 17:05, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, Latin for 4 is quadri. 66.32.113.34 17:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oops, I meant Greek. -- Wapcaplet 17:22, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the history, as of this point, it keeps changing. An edit on July 5 by Heron says "it's from teras not tetra", but then, on August 2, 209.6.214.139 changed it back to saying it's from tetra. 66.245.22.210 16:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Objection to "Tradition"

"This difference arises from a conflict between the long standing tradition of using binary prefixes and base 2 in the computer world, and the more popular and intuitive decimal (SI) standard adopted widely in the industry."

This is not a matter of tradition. Base 2 is fundamental to the physical/logical construction of binary computing devices, whereas the 'inutitive' decimal system was a convenience adopted by marketeers. This has been noted in numerous reviews of computing hardware (citations are needed), usually during periods where hardware capability measurement transitioned from Kilo to Mega and Mega to Giga units (whether in terms of storage capacity or bandwidth). The reason (again noted in such articles) was that rounding Base 2 units down to decimal units invariably results in 'more bangs for the buck', which is clearly advantageous in regulatory regimes where comparative advertising is permitted, and more generally where levels of competition (and therefore advertising) are high.

193.118.251.61 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)The Bagwan - If asked, google will respond with the more natural (to me) binary based answer
http://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1C1CHMA_en-GBGB312GB314&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=1+TB+in+GB
1 terabyte = 1024 gigabytes

Raylu's opinion

I think it would be more convienient if we deleted all the pages and put them toghether (in a new one), as much of the content on the pages is similar or the exact same. --raylu 22:56, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

What pages; can you make a complete list?? 66.245.99.122 22:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry I wasn't more clear and for the slow response. I meant the pages like kilobyte, megabyte, etc. raylu 03:58, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

We talked about it on Talk:Binary prefix#Vote_vote_vote.21, but decided to make a navigation template instead, since articles like megabyte are large compared to exabyte. - Omegatron 04:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

"A typical video store contains about 8 terabytes of video. The books in the largest library in the world, the U.S. Library of Congress, contain about 20 terabytes of text."

Does this take into account compression? Both video and text can be compressed, the latter especially. Text compresses extremely well. 68.203.195.204 01:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It shouldn't. The point is to illustrate the magnitude of the amount of data. While compression can reduce the amount of storage space it takes up, the actual amount of data remains the same. --Alexwcovington 08:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are right that the "actual amount of data" remains the same, but the problem is that this number, "the actual amount of data", is unknown and cannot possibly be known in practice. Knowing it would require finding the smallest possible program that can generate the data and proving that it's the smallest. (See algorithmic information theory.) Therefore the anonymous user's objection is quite valid: where do these "8 terabytes" and "20 terabytes" numbers come from? They must be either a measurement of uncompressed data or of some compression (e.g. DEFLATE) of it. --Shibboleth 21:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed the claim about the "largest library in the world" completey, having changed it already. According to the respective websites, the British Library has more items, but LoC has more shelf space. Either way, I think the "largest" claim needs qualifying if it is to be used and personally I don't think it is very helpful anyway (especially to non-Americans). It would be better to say "more text than the xxx million books in the LoC" or something similar. Bobbis 21:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, a DVD contains either 4 or 8 gigabytes of data, so the claim is really saying that the typical video store has about 1500 movies in stock... but that ignores video tapes, and also in 2012 there is no such thing as a typical video store anymore, most have gone bust. As for the Library of Congress... throughout the history of computers (American) journalists have been fond of comparing the storage capacity of computers to the LoC, it is a commonly used reference. The catch is that 20TB is much larger than any number I recall previously hearing, so I'd like to see a reference. But the LoC is a moving target because they are constantly adding to it so that possibly makes it less useful as a reference. OldCodger2 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

American trillion, Canadian...

Someone edited this article to say "million million, American trillion". Well, what is it in Canada?? In other words, American trillion, Canadian... 66.245.115.34 21:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See trillion. --Shibboleth 21:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So, shouldn't it then be "million million (English trillion)" or "million million (short scale trillion)" ? Ian Cairns 23:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My last edit tried to address these points. Ian Cairns 12:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

European (please write the answer here)

Well, the UK is part of Europe - so this should be 'answers' rather than 'answer'. Alternatively: Continental European (please write the answer here). Ian Cairns 01:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My last edit tried to address these points. Ian Cairns 12:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Size of Wikipedia

How large is the entire database of Wikipedia in terabytes as of this moment?? 66.32.244.146 02:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Statistics the grand total for all Wikipedias is just 2.3 Gigabytes. --Alexwcovington 09:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The stats says now that on the 13 July 2005, Wikipedia is 4.1 Gb. 159753 20:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The latest numbers on the above link are for Sep 2006 Wikipedia is at 15 Gb. No new statistics have been updated since Oct 2006. Maetrix 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean GB in the above, right, guys? 71.83.183.109 (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is only a few gigabytes big at this moment, but that's only counting the CURRENT revisions of all the articles. If you count all the revisions stored on the history of every article, then yes, you may get into the terabytes. Giggett (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Are they even related?

How are file sizes and 0's and 1's related? I do not agree with the pages being merged.

They are related in that a Terabyte is a measure of the amount of 0's and 1's. That said, I do agree they should not be merged. A terabyte is certainly a topic that can stand on its own as an article. A centimetre, metre, kilometre, etc... all have their own pages so why shouldn't a terabyte? — oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 05:41, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hence the question mark. All the smaller articles like pebibit should definitely be merged. See Talk:Binary prefix#Consolidate all the little articles and Talk:Binary prefix#We need a template for the little articles. - Omegatron 12:29, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Someone changed the merge template. It used to have a question mark after it for the bigger articles like megabyte. *sigh*... - Omegatron 12:31, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Terabyte or Terrabyte

Both versions are used on the same page! Which is correct?

Fixed Ian Cairns 10:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Terabyte" is correct. 67.183.207.37 05:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Gigabytes first

It's easier for the laymen to understand TB if we compare it to GB first.--Capsela 14:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cite for the UPS thing?

"The shipping company UPS has approximately 474 terabytes of information in its databases."

There's no way that could possibly be true, is there? PSXer 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I've been googling around, and it looks like that figure could refer to the total hard drive space on all their computers (of which they apparently have over a quarter millions), not one gigantic database. Of course, quite a bit of that would probably be empty space, as well as a lot of redundant data on each computer such as OS files. PSXer 04:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Or backups. — SheeEttin {T/C} 18:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of nonsense in the numbers

Cisco's estimate of internet traffic in 2010 [1] pegs 2010 internet (not all IP traffic) at 342 terabytes per minute (14,955 petabytes per year), which puts that 2008 number of "160 terabytes per second" into serious doubt. Nowhere in the source can I find references to 160 TB/sec for anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.254.142 (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Advertising

Is the definition that's just a link to a web design company by that name at all allowable? I shouldn't think so. I'm going to remove it shortly if nobody objects. Maybe a mod could tell that user to stop the ads? GrubLord 11:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed Maxtor 1TB CompUSA reference

I removed the reference to the Maxtor 1TB external disk since it's actually two 500GB disks in a RAID 0 or RAID 1 configuration. This is a very common type of product.

2TB drive

2TB drive available http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10351 I have updated the text to mention this but I do not know citation protocol so I placed a link to the product here.195.195.5.253 10:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

unless lacie manufactures the drive themselves then it does not belong in the article. As far as I know, lacie just resells drives made by others. OldCodger2 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hard Drive Growth

4 terabytes Nov 4th hittachy

Promotion issue?

It strikes me that the inclusion of this point in the article comes across as promotional (less so now than the original, but still). Do others not think so? Other points in the section seem to either involve non-commercial entities, or make claims that wouldn't really be used in marketing—no-one is going to say "wow, Walmart have a huge data warehouse, must use them!" SamBC(talk) 18:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Data transfer caps

The real point is that the term "bandwidth" has fallen into widespread misuse amongst hosting provider's promotional materials. It is very common to see such claims as "5 TB bandwidth included" to mean "extra charges commence after the first five terabytes transferred each month" or "your service may be suspended after the first five terabytes transferred each month". This says almost nothing about the actual data rates during transfer (peak or sustained). It could imply 50 seconds of service at 10 gigabits/second over each of ten simultaneous connections, or much longer service over less hungry connections.

Any datacomm engineer would cringe even at conflating data rate with bandwidth (compare baud). In North America, the old 300 baud modems were often configured to use 8 data bits, a start bit, a stop bit, and a parity bit, so they had an effective peak data rate of 300 * 8 / (8+3) = 218.18 bits per second. Yet they occupied most of a 3kHz telephony channel's bandwidth in the band between 300 and 3300 Hz. When 1200 baud modems were introduced they changed symbol encoding but still used the same bandwidth. At the time it was widely believed even amongst fairly sophisticated users that Shannon's law and the Nyquist criteria meant there would never be more than 6 kilobits per second possible over a telephone line (total up and downstream). Ultimately designers were able to approach 56 kilobits per second over the same 3kHz bandwidth by using more and more sophisticated symbol encoding and error correction schemes to trade off increased raw bit error rates for reduced signal to noise margin in each separately corrected sub-channel.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Laugh

From the article: "* Video - Released in 2009, the 3D animated film Monsters vs. Aliens used 100 TB of storage during development.^[1]"

^ IRENE THAM (2009-04-08). "Taking a monster shit; Massive computer power was needed to create the 3-D movie Monsters Vs Aliens". The Straits Times.

Seriously????????? "Taking a monster shit"? Interesting there is no web version of this article given ....

Question

I'm a dummy and can't do sums. How many GBs in a TB? I've just bought a 1TB external hard drive and each backup is 35GB. So how many will i squeeze into my hard drive?86.133.208.153 (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know 1TB equals about 1000GB 156.8.251.130 (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

about 28 backups of 35GB each.156.8.251.130 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A 1TB hard drive gets about 976 GB, but since hard drive companies only count 1000 bytes per KB, where they are supposed to count 1024 instead. But still 976 GB is a lot, so you should fit about 28 backups on that drive. Giggett (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

General comments

I can't access the fourth reference, probably because its URL is encoding someone's access ID, but while I agree these (at least the three I can access)are not great references, they do illustrate the binary usage. Where are you going with this? What happens if we discard these references? Rwessel (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

U can access the fourth reference by Google searching just the terms Iannarelli petabyte storage. As it turns out it is a bad reference in that it states capacitity of hard drives is stated with binary prefixes. Tom94022 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There are two main issues. One is that the first JEDEC reference clearly defines tera in a ~~binary~~ decimal sense, and so cannot support the sentence as it stands; that one needs to go. The question then is the extent to which the other sources are reliable ones. If we accept them as reliable sources it has implications for petabyte, exabyte, etc. It would also mean there would be a case for new articles Brontobyte and Geopbyte, which (by implication) would be defined by the same reliable sources.
If the weaker references are removed, is the statement as worded still supported by the ones remaining?
So, are they reliable sources? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm missing something. The sentence is "1 TB is also used in some fields of computer science and information technology to denote 1099511627776 (1024**4 or 2**40) bytes...", how does the JEDEC reference not support that? Rwessel (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Which JEDEC reference do you mean? I am looking at Source 2 below, which includes the following two definitions (my emphasis)

2⁴⁰ tebi Ti tera + binary: (2¹⁰)⁴ = 1 099 511 627 776
tera: (10³)⁴

I see no support for a binary definition there. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As Rwessel says the reference clearly says "1 TB is also used in some fields of computer science and information technology to denote 1099511627776 (1024**4 or 2**40) bytes..." stop denying the facts.Glider87 (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Source 2 below, includes the following definition (my emphasis)

2⁴⁰ tebi Ti tera + binary: (2¹⁰)⁴ = 1 099 511 627 776 tera: (10³)⁴

I suggest the use of tera on both sides of the equation is sufficient and this one source is reliable. I further suggest references 1, 3 and 4 are redundant and/or unreilable and can be removed.
If someone wants to spend $71 for JEDEC JESD 100 Revision B, December 1, 2002 we might get an answer to whether it includes tera im a binary sense or not. It's absence from the JEDEC dictionary is not proof of its absence from the standard. I did send an email to JEDEC asking they update their dictionary.
I do have a concern about the word "storage' in the sentance since most storage as opposed to memory is reported by its vendors with decimal prefixes. I propose just deleting the "or storage." Tom94022 (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

In my interpretation of the definition from the JEDEC website (Source 2), there is a semicolon missing between "1 099 511 627 776" and "tera". With that semicolon included (see my earlier post above) it does make sense, defining tebi as a binary prefixe and tera as a decimal one.

My take on the Iannarelli book is that, while it might be a perfectly good source for an article about company security, it does not exactly major on computing. If tera is used in a binary sense (and I suspect it is, somewhere, probably for supercomputing), there must be a better reference than this one.

To summarise what we have so far for the 5 sources:

whatsabyte: open
JEDEC: does not back up statement (decimal definition)
kelas: unsuitable reference (WP mirror)
Iannarell: unreliable source (discredited; does not major on computer memory or storage)
JESD84-B2: open

This still leaves sources 1 and 5 as possible reliable sources.

Regarding the wording of the text under discussion, I agree it can be improved, but suggest we delay discussion on how to reword until we have settled on which, if any, of the 5 sources survive the purge. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This article about BlueGene/L uses "32 TB" in a binary sense (65536 nodes * 2 GiB/node = 32 TiB). Does anyone know what unit symbol IBM uses to describe this amount of memory? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This presentation by K E Jordan of IBM uses "32 TB" in the binary sense. I also found this one (from the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, about BlueGene Q) using TiB, but no matter - the issue here is whether TB is sometimes used in a binary sense, and the IBM source suggests it is, sometimes. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Source 2 below, includes the following definitions (my emphasis)

2³⁰ gibi Gi giga + binary: (2¹⁰)³ = 1 073 741 824 giga: (10³)⁴
2⁴⁰ tebi Ti tera + binary: (2¹⁰)⁴ = 1 099 511 627 776 tera: (10³)⁴

plus similar expresions for kilo and mega.
I suggest the use of tera on both sides of its equation, (like kilo, mega and giga for their equations) can only be intrepreted as JEDEC using tera in both binary and decimal meanings. JEDEC is a reliable source. The only changes necessary are removing the redundant/unreliable sources and correcting the "or storage" language. Tom94022 (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It's obvious that Dondervogel isn't reading the reference correctly. It's also obvious that the reference does say "tera + binary: (2¹⁰)⁴ = 1 099 511 627 776" which is tera in the binary sense. Fnag aton 11:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

DICTIONARY OF TERMS FOR SOLID-STATE TECHNOLOGY, 6th Edition Free download after registration says "terabyte commonly used as a prefix to units of semiconductor storage capacity and meaning 240 [1 099 511 627 776] bytes". The JEDEC dictionary says terabyte is a binary quantity commonly used in storage capacity. Fnag aton 11:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

A proposal

Proposed change

Based on the evidence so far, I propose we delete sources 1 to 5, replace them with the best BlueGene reference we can find using 32 TB in a binary sense, and rephrase the text to clarify that it applies to supercomputer memory. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Counter proposal, you stop violating WP:NPOV by repeatedly adding incorrect tags for reliable sources. Fnag aton 11:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Supporting references

Discussion of proposed change

Source 1: whatsabyte

link to reference

Megabytes, Gigabytes, Terabytes... What Are They?

summary

Defines 1 terabyte as 1000 gigabytes or 1024 gigabytes.
Defines 1 petabyte as 1000 terabytes or 1024 terabytes.
Defines 1 exabyte as 1000 petabytes or 1024 petabytes.
Defines 1 zettabyte as 1000 exabytes or 1024 exabytes.
Defines 1 yottabyte as 1000 zettabytes or 1024 zettabytes.
Defines 1 brontobyte as 1000 yottabytes or 1024 yottabytes.
Defines 1 geopbyte as 1000 brontobytes or 1024 brontobytes.

discussion

This source is accurate, as are all these others [2] [3] Fnag aton 11:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Source 2: JEDEC dictionary (entry for 'mega')

link to reference

mega (M) (as a prefix to units of semiconductor storage capacity)

summary

Defines tera as 1000⁴

discussion

This reference defines tera as 1000⁴, and therefore does not support the statement that tera = 1024⁴. It should be removed. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You're wrong because the reference also defines tera as a power of two quantity. It's right there for everyone to see. It should stay because it's a reliable source for terabyte being a power of two quantity. Fnag aton 11:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Source 3: kelas

link to reference

JEDEC memory standards

summary

Claims that JEDEC Standard 100B.01 defines tera as 1024⁴

discussion

This looks like a mirror of the WP article JEDEC memory standards, which is unsuitable as an independent source. It should be removed. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Source 4: Google books

link to reference

Iannarelli, J. G., & O’Shaughnessy, M. (2014). Information Governance and Security: Protecting and Managing Your Company’s Proprietary Information. Butterworth-Heinemann.

summary

Defines 1 terabyte as 1024 gigabytes.
Defines 1 petabyte as 1024 terabytes.
Defines 1 exabyte as 1024 petabytes.
Defines 1 zettabyte as 1024 exabytes.
Defines 1 yottabyte as 1024 zettabytes.
Defines 1 brontobyte as 1024 yottabytes.
Defines 1 geopbyte as 1024 brontobytes.

discussion

The book is primarily about information security, not computer memory. Hardly seems a good choice to support the text under scrutiny. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It's describing storage values as binary terabytes and binary petabytes. It's a reliable source. Like this onewhich describes why you're wrong.Fnag aton 11:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Source 5: JESD84-B42

link to reference

JESD84-B42 [4]

summary

"The maximum density possible to be indicated is thus 2 Tera bytes (4 294 967 296 x 512B)."

discussion

Seems unsuitable as a source for as long as we don't know what's in it. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It's entirely suitable because the files contain the information cited. Pretending to not see the contents of a PDF is a really weak argument when others can see it.Fnag aton 11:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not unknown content when you download the file. Registration is free. Pretending to not see the contents of a PDF is a really weak argument when others can see it.Fnag aton 11:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability Access to sources

Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).

With my free JEDEC login I searched for JESD84 and found this JEDEC Standard. MultiMediaCard (MMC) Electrical Standard, High Capacity (MMCA, 4.2) JESD84-B42 page 86. (PDF 100)

SEC_COUNT
The device density is calculated from the register by multiplying the value of the register (sector count) by 512B/sector. The maximum density possible to be indicated is thus 2 Tera bytes (4 294 967 296 x 512B). The least significant byte (LSB) of the sector count value is the byte [212].

Get a free JEDEC login. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That is useful information. It is a much clearer use of tera in the binary sense than the JEDEC definition of 'mega', which is very unclear. I have therefore replaced it with this one. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

references

It's not dubious because all the links support the binary use of tera. Denying the facts, repeatedly, is WP:POINT and damages Wikipedia. Please just stop pushing your agenda.Glider87 (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

[1] IRENE THAM (2009-04-08). "Taking a monster shit; Massive computer power was needed to create the 3-D movie Monsters Vs Aliens". The Straits Times.

[1]