Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: SI vs. IEC prefixes
From: Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:21:53 -0800
On Dec 2, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Christopher Maynard <Christopher.Maynard () gtech com> wrote:
And for now I just documented the capture buffer size as "MiB" since that's the correct units. I have no problem changing the implementation of the capture buffer size to SI units though, if anyone thinks it makes more sense to do that.
Most if not all OSes will probably either require or prefer that the capture buffer size be a power of 2, and there's no good reason for it to be a multiple of a power of 10. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- SI vs. IEC prefixes Christopher Maynard (Dec 01)
- Re: SI vs. IEC prefixes Evan Huus (Dec 01)
- Re: SI vs. IEC prefixes Joerg Mayer (Dec 02)
- Re: SI vs. IEC prefixes Graham Bloice (Dec 02)
- Re: SI vs. IEC prefixes Christopher Maynard (Dec 02)
- Re: SI vs. IEC prefixes Christopher Maynard (Dec 02)
- Re: SI vs. IEC prefixes Guy Harris (Dec 02)