Ask HN: Why isn't data in motion universally measured in bits?

3 points·WarOnPrivacy··3 comments

Data at rest (as in storage) is reliably measured in bytes.

But data in motion is measured in bits in most places (ISPs) and in bytes in others (some networking gear).

For data in motion, bytes feels like a divergence from the widely accepted standard.

Maybe there are good reasons. Why are bytes chosen where bits are commonly expected? (Looking at you TrueNAS.)

Bit/byte context somewhat what historically linked to minimum unit for given medium.[0] ISPs generally deal with sending/delivering 'raw' data as bits with no symbolism. vs. networking gear deals with subgroups bits in 'ascii/utf-8 byte sizes' within network data protocol. historically, electrical waves vs. what symbols electrical waves represent.

From TrueNAS/harddrive perspective, bits physical medium, bytes 'data as used by end user'

-----------------------

[0] : https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/computer-networks/difference-b...

> From TrueNAS/harddrive perspective, bits physical medium, bytes 'data as used by end user

Appreciate the response. Not sure I follow this last bit. My Q is about the inconsistency of how network data is measured.

TrueNAS measures it's network thruput in bytes. Users have asked for a toggle but he devs are resistant. I was hoping to learn why they really want bytes.

Minimum standard of measurement of buffer size handled by electronics.

Simplified, non-technical: Adding 'bits' would just indicate how many bytes / 8 + bits in last byte of data transferred. Last byte in transfer message would still be processed as a full byte by electronics, even if less than 8 bits. So, no total through put change. aka from electonic path through put standpoint, 33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40 bits is same as a 5 bytes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com