What's above a Brontobyte?

[thefifthlord]

The word bronto means "Thunder" in greek hence think of it as a thunderbyte.

The term brontobyte is semi-official and therefore is not in wikipedia or any other encyclopedia since they require concrete sources to be listed. However it has been used by hundreds of thousands of people and therefore it has unilaterally accepted as to represent 1000000000000000000000000000 (10^27).

Concerning these:

nisabyte=1024 brontobytes
zotzabyte=1024 nisabytes

They are "slang words" created by nisa and zotza. These have been falsely accepted by people simply because they don't have another source. I should be quick to point out though that these are fake and are absolutely not official.

Perhaps you need to relax? Free Online Games

 

[Toxitalk]

The word bronto means "Thunder" in greek hence think of it as a thunderbyte.

The term brontobyte is semi-official and therefore is not in wikipedia or any other encyclopedia since they require concrete sources to be listed. However it has been used by hundreds of thousands of people and therefore it has unilaterally accepted as to represent 1000000000000000000000000000 (10^27).

Concerning these:

nisabyte=1024 brontobytes
zotzabyte=1024 nisabytes

They are "slang words" created by nisa and zotza. These have been falsely accepted by people simply because they don't have another source. I should be quick to point out though that these are fake and are absolutely not official.

Thats right as a 1024 brontobytes is a Toxibyte

 

[Jamesds]

So who ressurected this ancient thread? 2004

I've heard of upto a yottabyte. I won't trust anything above that until it is officially accepted. As for the kierfabyte, 1/8th of a bit, that isn't possible since a bit is the smallest unit in computing!! Who on earth invented it? They ought to be given a slap...

 

[Immortality]

I've been studying metric prefixes, and I found out Brontobytes are made-up. The highest are in fact Yottabytes, of which have a capacity of 1 trillion Terabytes. And the smallest byte I found is the Yoctobyte. Here are comparisons.

1 Yottabyte = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Bytes
1 Yoctobyte = 0.000000000000000000000001 Bytes
(A Yoctobyte is a Yoctoscopic sized byte, and that is WAY smaller than microscopic).

 

[Immortality]

I've been studying metric prefixes, and I found out Brontobytes are made-up. The highest are in fact Yottabytes, of which have a capacity of 1 trillion Terabytes. And the smallest byte I found is the Yoctobyte. Here are comparisons.

1 Yottabyte = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Bytes
1 Yoctobyte = 0.000000000000000000000001 Bytes
(A Yoctobyte is a Yoctoscopic sized byte, and that is WAY smaller than microscopic).

 

[Jamesds]

Good grief, I've spent 4 years in University since my last post in this thread and am about to graduate - how time flies. Loving the fact this 7 year old thread has been bumped yet again, and what a good day to pick to resurrect a thread - Easter Sunday of all days, that celebrates Jesus' resurrection!

Anyway, like you said, yotta is the largest SI unit prefix, denoting 10^24. Yocto would be the inverse, but I have to, as a computer scientist, make two pernickety comments regarding your explanation.

First off, 1 kilobyte = 1024 bytes, not 1000 bytes, due simply to the base-2 representation of data in low-level storage. 1024 = 2^10, so each successive prefix to byte-related magnitudes is 2 to the power of a multiple of 10:
- 2^10 = 1024 bytes = 1kB
- 2^20 = 1048576 bytes = 1024kB = 1MB
- 2^30 = 1024MB = 1GB
...and so on. Unfortunately manufacturers of storage mediums use the base-10 prefix to state the capacity of the devices they create, which leads to you getting less than you thought you paid for. It's correct enough I guess, but rather annoying.

Also, a byte is quantised into bits, and there is no quantity smaller than a bit, so having a decimal fraction of a byte doesn't really make sense. It does, however, make sense for units such as mass, for which the mass of sub-atomic particles is exceedingly small (to the degree that yocto is actually not of a high enough magnitude to be useful!).

Seems you're new here, so word of advice - note the ages of threads you dig up; it's bad forum etiquette to bump old threads . But hey, welcome to CFC

 

[mdwh]

Fractional amounts of a bit make sense if say, you're measuring bandwidth (well, in practice these days there's no need for that level of accuracy, but in principle the concept of a fractional bit is something that makes sense for such cases).

 

[Souron]

You can have fractional data transfer rate, however, for which the units are bits per second, or bytes per second. You'd be hard pressed to find anything that slow, but conceptually it's possible. Practically you might list a connection as 0.001 Bytes per second. But conceivably you could call that speed 1 miliByte per second. Or if it were 0.00098 Bytes per second.

That would be sending one byte every 17 minutes.

 

[Jamesds]

True, but from my physics education, I'd argue that's a different unit altogether, for which fractional values would make sense given that another dimension (of time) is involved. For simple capacity values in units of bits and bytes, fractions don't make sense. That's my view, at least.

To be honest, I've never thought of bandwidth represented as a fraction of a bit/byte before - that's pretty darn slow. However, I think the methods outlined in this brilliant RFC by Vint Cerf would actually be a good example!

It contains such gems as:

• Firefly cryptography - an inefficient method of encrypting messages to yield a very low transmission rate
• Ultra-slow and ultra-robust communication using M1A1 tanks, each with a 0 or 1 painted on them, driving past cameras
• Airline baggage routing - in which packets leaving a router are mislabelled, with random changes to their destination field as they propagate through the network including special checks to ensure they are not routed to their actual intended destination

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, since 10 raised to the 27th power is a bronte (thunder), i guess 1024 brontai could be associated with a thyella (storm). So a thyellobyte

Another road is to utilize the "Bronto" part as something relevant to the Brontosaur, and thus have the next category be a Tyrannobyte, from tyranno=torture (although the term Tyrannos-Tyrant originally did not have such negative connotation). But i prefer the thyellobyte

 

[Zelig]

Good grief, I've spent 4 years in University since my last post in this thread and am about to graduate - how time flies. Loving the fact this 7 year old thread has been bumped yet again, and what a good day to pick to resurrect a thread - Easter Sunday of all days, that celebrates Jesus' resurrection!

Anyway, like you said, yotta is the largest SI unit prefix, denoting 10^24. Yocto would be the inverse, but I have to, as a computer scientist, make two pernickety comments regarding your explanation.

First off, 1 kilobyte = 1024 bytes, not 1000 bytes, due simply to the base-2 representation of data in low-level storage. 1024 = 2^10, so each successive prefix to byte-related magnitudes is 2 to the power of a multiple of 10:
- 2^10 = 1024 bytes = 1kB
- 2^20 = 1048576 bytes = 1024kB = 1MB
- 2^30 = 1024MB = 1GB
...and so on. Unfortunately manufacturers of storage mediums use the base-10 prefix to state the capacity of the devices they create, which leads to you getting less than you thought you paid for. It's correct enough I guess, but rather annoying.

Also, a byte is quantised into bits, and there is no quantity smaller than a bit, so having a decimal fraction of a byte doesn't really make sense. It does, however, make sense for units such as mass, for which the mass of sub-atomic particles is exceedingly small (to the degree that yocto is actually not of a high enough magnitude to be useful!).

Seems you're new here, so word of advice - note the ages of threads you dig up; it's bad forum etiquette to bump old threads . But hey, welcome to CFC

Nah, techically, kilobyte, megabyte, etc. are all base 10.

Base 2 are are kibibyte, mebibyte, etc.

Manufacturers of storage mediums are doing it right, operating systems are doing it wrong.