4 ms·
I was actually thinking about this claim. Seems kind of unreasonable; seems that the amount of data lost should be proportional to the size of the data, not th
by jluxenberg 16y ago
I was actually thinking about this claim. Seems kind of unreasonable; seems that the amount of data lost should be proportional to the size of the data, not the number of objects it is split into.
- ceejayoz 16y agoI just figured they're going off an average object size stat. Data size can be equally meaningless - a single bit of data loss might be catastrophic in a 10 GB file, or it might not be noticeable in a 1 KB file.
- xtacy 16y agoI am not sure if what you claim is meaningful. A single bit of data loss is a data loss, no matter what the file size is. If you meant you could fix the 1-bit error easily in the 1KB case, as you have just 8K bits to flip through, then it makes much more sense. If you split the big 10GB file into smaller chunks of 1KB (at which error detection/correction is done), then the fault becomes much more manageable.
- ceejayoz 16y ago> A single bit of data loss is a data loss, no matter what the file size is. Sure, but in a lossy JPEG, or a heavily compressed video file, a single bit in a single frame of a two hour movie really isn't going to matter much.
- thwarted 16y agoNot all bits are created equal. A one bit change in a mailmerge datafile could put a lawsuit from a Mr. Whitman in your hands.