Slashdot Mirror


Kevin Rose Load Tests Gmail

SishGupta writes "Load Testing Gmail - fillmybox@gmail.com A few weeks ago, Kevin Rose of the The Screen Savers decided to load test Google's new email service, Gmail. He asked everyone to email him their favourite 5MB attachments to 'fillmybox@gmail.com.' The test Gmail account is now 102% maxed out. You can read about the test and the results at Kevin Rose.com (his weblog)."

366 comments

  1. Slashdot Load Tests Kevin Rose's Web Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bet he wasn't expecting that!

    1. Re:Slashdot Load Tests Kevin Rose's Web Server by Pieroxy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hope gmail scales better that that... Anyone has a link?

    2. Re:Slashdot Load Tests Kevin Rose's Web Server by cuzality · · Score: 2, Funny
    3. Re:Slashdot Load Tests Kevin Rose's Web Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Slashdot Load Tests Kevin Rose's Web Server by magic+fruit · · Score: 0, Redundant

      not wanting to be a killjoy or anything, but attempting to break gmail without their permission is a denial of service attack. am i wrong? either way, lucky that google didn't get mad about it! 1GB + bounced mail to a single account in a short amount of time must have had a performance hit on the servers holding that account and maybe affected other accounts that used the same servers.

  2. Wow... by oldosadmin · · Score: 2, Funny

    And I was thinking the fact I was at 13% was quite impressive.

    --
    Jay | http://oldos.org
  3. Gmail annoys me by Blymie · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've had little success with GMail's "auto ignore" option. Check this mozilla screengrab out:

    http://etrade.malformed.org/Screenshot.png

    1. Re:Gmail annoys me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, my first hint would be to try using Mozilla and not Pine... :)

    2. Re:Gmail annoys me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhhh.. huh?

    3. Re:Gmail annoys me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol. install linux. then maybe you can figure out how to do email correctly. linux is based on unix sendmail and windows is based on apple os - thats why it sux0rz. ive been running linux for over 15 years and i never get spam. try installing gentoo it's the shit

    4. Re:Gmail annoys me by tarunthegreat2 · · Score: 1

      I guess I'm feeding the troll...but how does using a webmail service depend on your OS? If you give out your gmail address to our Nigerian philanthropists, does it matter whether you have linux or windows? The spam is gonna go to your gmail acct....unless I'm missing something..

    5. Re:Gmail annoys me by KamuZ · · Score: 1

      Who moderate this? not because it's wrong, because he/she had the guts to click a linked image on slashdot! :D

    6. Re:Gmail annoys me by fuzzix · · Score: 2, Funny
      ...unless I'm missing something..

      You are.

      HINT: joke
    7. Re:Gmail annoys me by tarunthegreat2 · · Score: 1

      Sigh... I think it's time to implement and tags for the humour-challended people (like me)... :-(

    8. Re:Gmail annoys me by tarunthegreat2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And also how to use the PREVIEW !#@#!#@#!#@...I must be new here.....

    9. Re:Gmail annoys me by Dogers · · Score: 1

      what, you think moderators read comments fully?!

      why bother when posters dont read the articles fully? :)

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
  4. Fill your box with what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    With a gmail address of "fillmybox", I wonder what kind of file attachments he received!

    1. Re:Fill your box with what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh... I just sent him some asian pr0n... you know he likes it :-)

    2. Re:Fill your box with what? by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      > With a gmail address of "fillmybox", I wonder
      > what kind of file attachments he received!

      I was really pissed when my hot grits bounced.

      Does Natalie Portman have a gmail account yet?

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    3. Re:Fill your box with what? by FifthRayne · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's call load testing. Fair guess as to what get's squirted into that box.

  5. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm thinking we hit Gmail with around 50-75,000+, 5MB+ emails in a 10-15min window.

  6. KR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why does anyone listen to him...he's half security, half pirate, half hacker.

    That's more then 100%!!!

    ~Eric

    1. Re:KR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ppppffftt... actually, 100% show off!
      oooohhh, look at me, I have a Gmail account... bet you cant fill it :P oooooh!

    2. Re:KR by Shadowkat · · Score: 1

      Would that mean he's operating at 150%?

  7. And now... by deutschemonte · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...may the Gmail privacy flaming begin!

    --
    The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
  8. Just in case the page gets slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Posting anonymously to avoid karma whoring...

    A few weeks ago, you may remember that we decided to load test Google's new email service, Gmail. I called on all of you to email me your favorite 5MB attachments to "fillmybox@gmail.com". Well, we did it! My Gmail account is now 102% maxed out.

    Here are the results of the test:

    July 12th: Created account and promoted it on The Screen Savers. Within 5 minutes, Gmail processed over 300 mail messages (most with 5+ MB attachments). 10 minutes into the test, I started receiving various internal server error messages and was no longer able to login. Proceeded to login with other Gmail accounts to ensure this was not a site wide problem. All other accounts worked fine.

    July 13-17th: Still unable to login. At this point, I'm feeling I must have triggered some type of internal fraud flag that suspended my account. I have received 2,000+ emails (to my personal non-Gmail address) from viewers who have received bounced mail when attempting to message the Gmail account. So how many emails where sent? No way to tell for sure, but considering that our network is in 50+ million homes, that I plugged it twice, and I received over 2,000 complaints from people who actually took the time to dig around and find my personal email address, I'm thinking we hit Gmail with around 50-75,000+, 5MB+ emails in a 10-15min window.

    July 26th: Finally able to log back in, and the account is full! It took 686 email messages that were received on July 12th-15th. For some reason Gmail allowed me to go past my 1000MB limit to 1023MB (1GB=1024MB). The account can no longer receive mail messages (they are bounced) or send outgoing mail. The strange thing is that Google doesn't send any type of warning emails once you are nearing or reach your limit - but I'm sure this will be added in the final release.

    The only odd thing about the entire test is the login issue. It's strange to me that all of my other accounts worked fine, but for some reason the test account was frozen. [THEORY] I have a feeling this had to do with mail message processing. Google knows that 80% of mail messages are text, and we all know that text is highly compressible. That said, they probably only have around 2-300MB of storage allocated for each 1GB account (obviously this will fluctuate up to 1GB depending on the user's mail content). My take on this, is that they have a huge series of RAID arrays at their server farm. Every time an email comes in, it is compressed and stored in that users account on the RAID. Upon account login the user's data is decompressed, indexed, and moved to some type of RAM/solid state drive for quick access. Once this is complete, it is then displayed to the end user (a 1-2 second process). I have a feeling that due to the huge number of incoming emails, I had some type of processing time out occur. The server was trying to write data to my library (thousands of new msgs), while retrieve and displaying data - resulting in errors. A few days after things settled down (and a few cron jobs later), Gmail was able to sort things out [END THEORY]. At some point I will talk to my buddy over at Google and have him find out how they really do it.

    Anyhow.. Here are a few pics of the maxed out account:

    - 1023MB
    - Outgoing Error Message

    Sorry for the rambling and poor post structure, it's 2:35am and I can hardly keep my eyes open, I'm off to bed. night.

    +krose
    -- sign up for my newsletter to find out what I'm up to --

  9. Fill my box?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    certainly an inventive way to get a response.

    1. Re:Fill my box?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      certainly an inventive way to get a response.

      Especially at a bar. It would make a good t-shirt.

  10. That's nothing. by ktakki · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why, just last night I wrote a little program that load tests Google.

    Regards,
    Arthur MyDoom, Jr.

    --
    "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    1. Re:That's nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wow, you just turned your PC into an iMac!

  11. 1GB = 1024MB so... by Compholio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... since Google advertises the service as 1GB of email storage 1023MB is technically under the limit and not 102% of the limit.

    1. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Feanturi · · Score: 3, Informative

      The limit as stated on the quota page is 1000MB, not 1GB. That's why he's at 102%.

    2. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Informative
      Uh no. Colloqually that is true, but 1 GB actually equals 10^9 bytes. It's 1 GiB that equals 10^30 bytes.

      It is arguable whether 1GB is 10^9 or 2^30 bytes, however, the strictest and most current definition of 1 GB is 10^9 bytes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      I was actually rather disapointed with google advertised 1gb limit displayed as 1000mb. Most advertisements for hard drives and other mediums use the 1000mb=1gb rounding for the public specs cause it makes the drive look bigger then it actually is. It's always struck as just a really cheap shadey thing to do. I'm glad to see that google allows you to use the full gig.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    4. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by aaron_ds · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually 1GiB is equal to 1024MiB while 1GB is equal to 1000MB

    5. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      That's supposed to read:

      *when the* google advertised 1gb limit... It's always struck *me* as...

      I think the words.... I just forget to type them sometimes....

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    6. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, google advertises 1000 MB of email storage.

    7. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Don't link to wikis from Slashdot.
      2. Nobody uses "GiB". And "Gibibyte"? Who the fuck talks like that? That's like, baby talk.

    8. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never heard (or seen) anyone I respect use "GiB".

    9. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might be wrong but I am pretty sure it is 1073741824.

      Don't be nit picking unless you do it right.

    10. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      um...what?

      1073741824 what?

      1GB = 1000MB, 1GiB = 1024MiB was absolutely correct.

      what were you trying to say?

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    11. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1000 / 1024 = 102.4%, duh.

    12. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by aeroseth · · Score: 1

      I think they are rounding the number (1000 Megabytes) for marketing reasons, but in reality they are using the "magic number" for technical reasons.

      Binary, it all goes back to binary if you like to byte, or Hex if you like to nybble.

      Just a few bits to chawmp on,
      Seth

      --
      "Is that real poncho or a Sears poncho?" ~~FZ
    13. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rounding?

      Do you think it's shady when people "round" a kilometer "down" to 1000 meters?

      Or do SI prefixes mean something different to you?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    14. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by DA-MAN · · Score: 1

      1GB = 1000MB, 1GiB = 1024MiB was absolutely correct.

      What in the hell do the Men in Black have to do with anything on this thread?

      --
      Can I get an eye poke?
      Dog House Forum
    15. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      most GNU utils report sizes in *iB now

    16. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      heh, I was wondering that when I typed it.

      1024 instances of Will Smith is a very scary thought.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    17. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most GNU utils report sizes in *iB now

      And the AC's point still stands.

    18. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Phexro · · Score: 1

      Nothing.

      *Zap*

    19. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Why is a kilobyte 1024 bytes?

      With a wonderfully ugly color scheme too.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    20. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      102% is an accurate decimal representation of 1024 (a binary gig)

    21. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by kantai · · Score: 1

      You and your SI can shove it.

    22. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is what he said, so follow your own advice.

      1GiB = 1024MiB
      1MiB = 1024KiB
      1KiB = 1024B .. 1024*1024*1024 == ? ;)

    23. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1000 / 1024 = 97.7%, duh.

    24. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      The RIAA don't seem to think its wrong.
      from yesterday:

      RIAA Continues Distributing Dud CDs to Satisfy Settlement

      *shudder*

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    25. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The simple fact is that mega means million, and giga means billion. Giga simply does not mean 2^30. Hence, it does not make any sense whatsoever to call 2^30 bytes a gigabyte, any more than it makes sense to call 2^10 bytes a megabyte.

      Why is it so hard for people to admit when they are doing something stupid and correct it? The idea that we should continue doing something simply because it is entrenched is folly at best and is better described as arrogant. I find the idea that we should do something simply because it is the way it has always been done to be absolutely horrific.

      Apparently the moderatorship agrees with you that I am wrong, because they have moderated my comment as flamebait, in spite of an utter lack of intent to flame. I simply want words to have as few meanings as possible. The english language, made up as it is of smatterings of all different languages, is complicated enough without me having to now consider all different possible meanings for a technical lexicon as well, while at the same time trying to retain knowledge of assorted programming languages, operating system commands, and so on. Hence, I attempt to do my part against entropy - it can never be stamped out, but it can be minimized on a local scale.

      Now you probably think (more than before) that I am a wanker. However, we are faced with incontrovertible proof that you are a coward, and as such I will not allow your opinion to bother me more than is required to write this comment.

      I state my assertion once more: mega means one million, 10^6. To try to use the prefix to mean something else, besides the idea of something very large which makes sense given that it is from a greek word meaning "great", is a mistake. To make it try to mean 2^10 is sheer folly. Continuing in this vein, we see that giga means one billion (10^9) and is descended from greek gigas, or "giant", and that tera means 10^12 (one trillion) and is descended from the greek word for monster but none of these words (or parts of words) has a meaning that has anything to do with powers of two. To take a word with a specific meaning, and to assign it a similar but different meaning can not be anything but ridiculous. To attempt to correct such an error might be impossible, but it won't stop me from trying to do what I see as essentially the right and more importantly logical thing. Computers are tools of logic - why encumber the very language with which we describe them with illogic?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by dotwaffle · · Score: 1

      I'm confused. Is KB 1000 bytes, or is that KiB? I of course mean in SI/ISO/whatever. In real life, we all know it depends whether you are talking about hard drives or memory...

    27. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by gamgee5273 · · Score: 2, Informative
      But no one, except for those of us who know better, call a GB a GB any longer. My Maxtor 200 GB drive is actually 189.77 GB. As much as I love my iPod, my 40 GB iPod is actually a 37.21 GB iPod.

      The hard drive manufacturers and the computer manufacturers have been doing this for years, and the average consumer has not noticed. Google is just going with the flow by saying 1 GB = 1000 MB.

    28. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Marketers for a long time have defined mega- and giga- to mean 1000x instead of 1024x, and since most dictionaries only list the 1000x definition it's the one that's more often going to be considered to be "right" by non-geek people.

    29. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Drives are advertised in Fake Gigabytes. To convert FGB (Fake Gigabyte) to GB, multiply by the Fake Gigabyte Constant equal to 109/230, or approximately 0.93. For example, a HD claiming to have 40 GB actually has 40 FGB, or 40 * 0.93 = 37.2 GB.

    30. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Exatron · · Score: 0, Troll

      KB is still 1024 bytes, despite a few wackos trying to redefine it.

      --
      "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
      "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
    31. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Exatron · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No, the fact is that SI unit prefixes have slightly different values when describing computer storage, and you're just going to have to accept that.

      There's no point in changing them to satisfy a few uptight "purists" who can't understand that there's no point in changing something that works.

      --
      "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
      "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
    32. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by ceswiedler · · Score: 1

      Dictionaries list kilobyte as 1000 bytes because that's correct. The SI prefixes existed before kilobytes did. Just because 2^10 is 'conveniently close' to 1000 doesn't make it kilo-.

      Now, it often does help marketers to have more kilobytes in their product...

    33. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by ceswiedler · · Score: 2

      The meaning of KB is currently being debated (in this very thread) but KiB is definitely 1024.

      To continue the argument: you don't have to make a fool of yourself by saying 'kibibytes', which sounds like you have a speech impediment. But is (writing) KiB really that bad? It's being exact, and isn't precise language part of geek culture? And it's got mixed case, which geeks love almost as much as LotR.

      Use 'kilobytes' when you want to be quick, and use 'KiB' when you want to be precise.

    34. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Cody+Hatch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, no.

      The standard prefixes kilo, mega, giga, tera, etc. mean the exact same thing when applied to ANY measure. That's the entire point of a standard, and the standard says 10^3, 10^6, 10^9, and 10^12, respectively.

      The standard prefixes kibi, mebi, gibi, tebi, etc. mean the exact same thing when applied to ANY measure. That's the entire point of a standard, and the standard says 2^10, 2^20, 2^30, and 2^40, respectively.

      To be clear - the value of the SI prefixes do NOT change, no matter what you happen to be measuring. Thats the entire point of the SI system, for crying out loud! People may misuse the units (for example, I've heard people expressing their weight in kilograms, which is obviously absurd), and if you want to communicate with them, you may want to misuse the units in the same fashion, but it doesn't make them RIGHT.

      <gratuitous flamage>
      Let's see - you're arguing that a unit system which is bizarre, contradictory, outdated, and confusing even to its adherents is good, because it sort of mostly works, despite the fact that there is a better and clearer alternative.

      Tell me, what's the weather like in your part of the US? Managed to blow up any launch vehicles recently? :-)
      </gratuitous flamage>

    35. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by niktesla · · Score: 2, Funny
      any more than it makes sense to call 2^10 bytes a megabyte.

      2^10 bytes would be a kilobyte. 2^20 bytes is a megabyte. I see your point, but I must ask what you suggest should be used instead?
      Some Suggestions:

      • 2^10 bytes: lotabyte (LB) (from lots of bytes), 2^20 bytes: bunchabyte (BB), ...
      • 2^10 bytes: pagebyte (PB), 2^20 bytes: chapterbyte (CB), 2^30 bytes: bookbyte (BB), 2^40 bytes: setbyte, ... libraribyte (LB)
      • 2^10 bytes: bikilobyte (from binary kilobyte (bKB or K2B), 2^20 bytes: bimegabyte (bMB or M2B), etc.
      • Or we could just accept the logical premise that the SI units in the computer world are based on the binary system, as has been the case for decades.
      --
      I've discovered a remarkable proof, but this margin is too small to contain it...
    36. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by jebiester · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, you're ... right!

      There's a link showing binary multiples here

    37. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by sik0fewl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The standard prefixes kilo, mega, giga, tera, etc. mean the exact same thing when applied to ANY measure. That's the entire point of a standard, and the standard says 10^3, 10^6, 10^9, and 10^12, respectively.

      Well, they're actually SI prefixes and can't really be applied to any unit of measurement.

      The standard prefixes kibi, mebi, gibi, tebi, etc. mean the exact same thing when applied to ANY measure. That's the entire point of a standard, and the standard says 2^10, 2^20, 2^30, and 2^40, respectively.

      It's a IEC standard, but not a universal standard. If you're an electrical engineer then you might have reason to use them, it's likely to confuse most other people (not that the situation isn't already confusing).

      To be clear - the value of the SI prefixes do NOT change, no matter what you happen to be measuring. Thats the entire point of the SI system, for crying out loud!

      That's right, whenever you apply them to *SI units*. Bytes are *NOT* SI units and kilo, mega, giga, etc are *NOT* SI prefixes when used to measure kilobytes, etc. Sure, they share the same names (the source of all the confusion), but they are not SI units and do not follow SI prefix rules.

      By the way, I actually wouldn't mind kibi/mibi/etc prefixes myself but it would've been a lot nicer if they thought of that *before* using the same prefixes as SI. I think eventually the new naming will takeover, but saying that the current system is bizarre, contradictory and outdated is simply incorrect. However, to say it is confusing hits the nail on the head.

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
    38. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Then the word needs amended to something else, because it's a label we tacked on to express the unchangable value of 1024bytes

    39. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by adamruck · · Score: 1

      whoever modded this informative is crazy. K is a SI unit prefix which stands for kilo which means 1000. Its a standard, it will never change. so 1 KB is 1 * 1000 Bytes. End of Story.

      --
      Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
    40. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      "Tell me, what's the weather like in your part of the US? Managed to blow up any launch vehicles recently? :-)"

      Challenger had nothing to do with metric vs. customary and everything to do with allowing managers to decide what should have been decided by engineers.

    41. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your argument is well-thought out and airtight.

      Unfortunately, it's clearly meaningless.

      People use GB to refer to 1024^3, and nothing you could say or do is going to change that.

      It's like religon. You can bitch all you want about how Christianity is full of logical holes (which, from any rational stance, it is), but that won't stop 1.2 billion people from believing it.

      Or, you can argue all you want about how Metric is superior (which, from any rational stance, it is), but the US is going to continue using the imperial system for the immediate future.

    42. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      It is contradictory though. Disc manufacturers use different schemes to network and/or memory manufacturers. They use whichever version of "kilobyte" fits in the circumstances and suits their business. Noone seems sure what a "kilobit" is either, which doesn't help, they assume it's a power of two like kilobyte *usually* is, which is rare.

    43. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      To be clear - the value of the SI prefixes do NOT change, no matter what you happen to be measuring. Thats the entire point of the SI system, for crying out loud!

      I think you're both right. Go here for example:
      http://www.efunda.com/units/si_prefixes.cfm

      The IEC came up with Kibi etc to avoid confusion where the SI units when used for computer storage were set to 2^10, etc.

      Here's another quote:

      The IEEE Standards Board decided that IEEE standards will be using the conventional, internationally adopted, definitions of the base-ten SI prefixes, except that the base-two definition may be used if such usage is explicitly pointed out on a case-by-case basis.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    44. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Informative
      K is a SI unit prefix which stands for kilo which means 1000. Its a standard, it will never change. so 1 KB is 1 * 1000 Bytes. End of Story.

      Correction to Story:
      "K" is the unit of temperature, the Kelvin.
      "k" is the abbreviation for "kilo", 1,000.

    45. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Cody+Hatch · · Score: 1

      Ah... Did anyone ever claim the Challenger disaster had anything to do with metric units? Before my time, really, but I hadn't thought anyone had claimed the O-ring problems were caused by metric conversions.

      In any case, I was thinking of the Mars Climate Orbiter, which AFAIK was indeed a victim of metric mishaps. Of course, the Mars Climate Orbiter wasn't a launch vehicle, I mererly called it that because...uh... as an intelligence test! Yes, that's it... *cough*

    46. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Cody+Hatch · · Score: 3, Informative

      The IEC isn't universal? Perhaps, but neither is the ISO. :-) Further, IIRC, the IEC wrote the initial SI standard, and it may have slipped your notice, but we're talking about computers, which is definetly an elec eng topic - and as you yourself state, the IEC is definetly a relevant body for elec eng.

      Further, the IEEE (a very relevent body for this topic) has decided that kilo, mega, etc. always and everywhere refer to their base-10 meanings - even if you're talking about bits and bytes, if you are referring to the base-2 meaning, you must explicitly state this on a case by case basis.

      Further, the IEC standard has recently been submitted to the IEEE (and also to the ISO, although it's not really their area), and is currently being tested as a "trial-use standard" by the IEEE, and is expected to be officially adopted by it sometime next year.

      There is no standard anywhere which defines kilo as 2^10. Kilo, as an SI prefix, is defined to be 10^3. The only prefix defined as 2^10 is Kibi. Well, as far as I'm aware, anyhow. But since the ISO, IEEE, and IEC (which in turn in an umbrella group for the various national standards bodies like ANSI, etc.) all agree on what kilo does and does not mean (and the only groups with an opinion agree on Kibi, I think we're running out of standards groups. If you know of a standard that defines kilo as 2^10, please cite. :-)

      None of which, of course, changes the fact that Joe User uses "megabyte" all the time to refer to 1,048,576 bytes, but since hard disk makers have already switched to calling 10^9 bytes a terabyte, I don't see how using the base-2 prefixes can increase the anger and frustration. :-) (And lets not even talk about floppy disks, where 1.44M = 2^10 * 10^3 bytes...)

    47. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by canadiangoose · · Score: 1

      It was much simpler when a kilobyte was understood to be 1024 bytes. Now when someone mentions that they have a 5 meg file, I feel as though I have to ask them whether they are talking about an English swallow or an African swallow.

      --
      Never eat more than you can lift -- Miss Piggy
    48. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sorry, but are you an Exatron who is
      1) 10^18 trons
      or
      2) 2^60 trons?
      Or, in your case, does 'exa' mean something different, maybe
      3) 1000 * 2^50 trons?
      Or maybe you use some other meaning of 'exa' - maybe a power of 3 or maybe 60 - that is 'slightly different' from 1), 2) or 3)?

    49. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in Soviet Russia.

    50. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you want to be precise when describing the number of bits, use the International Electrotechnical Commission's recommendations for binary quantities. The names are a combination of the multiple and the letters "bi" for binary, eg. kibi, mebi, gibi. The wiki page is here, and I've included the relevant table below:



      Name Abbr Factor
      kibi Ki 2^10 = 1024
      mebi Mi 2^20 = 1 048 576
      gibi Gi 2^30 = 1 073 741 824
      tebi Ti 2^40 = 1 099 511 627 776
      pebi Pi 2^50 = 1 125 899 906 842 624
      exbi Ei 2^60 = 1 152 921 504 606 846 976
    51. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by vidarh · · Score: 1

      1 GB "actually equals" whatever people consider it to equal. So far the only people I've seen trying to use 1GB = 10^9 bytes are pedantic revisionist twits and hard drive manufacturers.

    52. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, the most interesting data point still is the "1.44 MB" floppy disk: It has 1.44*1000 "KB", that is, 1.44*1000*1024 Bytes (2 sides * 80 tracks/side * 18 sectors/track * 512 Bytes/sector; the usable space is of course slightly less due to file system overhead). Therefore even with the new binary prefixes (KiB = Kibibytes = 2^10 Bytes, etc.) you have problems: It's neither true 1.44 MB (meaning 1.44*10^6 Bytes), nor 1.44 MiB (meaning 1.44*2^20 Bytes). Maybe the right term would be "1.44 KKiB" (1.44 Kilokibibytes).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    53. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "K" is the unit of thermodynamic temperature, the kelvin.

    54. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by RevRagnarok · · Score: 1

      Here's 82 Will Smiths ;)

      --
      I should put something clever here. Maybe someday.
    55. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by peterhoeg · · Score: 1

      still within the limit of 1024MB. 1024x1024x1000 = 1048576000 bytes

    56. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by TDRighteo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Already done.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte

      Unfortunately, this means the standard prefix actually changes for the more "engineering" of the two sizes, and I don't think it has a lot of acceptance.

      1 KiB = 2^10 B
      1 MiB = 2^20 B
      1 GiB = 2^30 B
      etc.

      They are rather fun to say though.

    57. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Marketers for a long time have defined mega- and giga- to mean 1000x instead of
      > 1024x, and since most dictionaries only list the 1000x definition it's the one
      > that's more often going to be considered to be "right" by non-geek people.

      Lawyers have made it very clear that the dictionary definition is the one they'll be sticking to if you hire them to defend you in 'misleading advertising' lawsuits too.

    58. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      It is arguable whether 1GB is 10^9 or 2^30 bytes, however, the strictest and most current definition of 1 GB is 10^9 bytes.

      I believe that that 2^30 number is used for storage and the 10^9 number is used for bandwidth. That's the way I have always uderstood it at least/

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    59. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by trewornan · · Score: 1
      109/230, or approximately 0.93

      Err - that's a rather rough approximation

    60. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1
      So... ummm.... basically you're saying we agree and that your post isn't really adding anything to the discussion of why Google claims 1000 MB is the mail quota for Gmail, yet Rose was able to go to 102% of his quota for 1023 MB.

      What I'm referring to is the popular perception that 1 GB = 1000 MB. The average consumer knows nothing about the extra 24 MB every GB should have. Thus, for Google to state that their 1 GB quota is 1000 MB, they are playing into the public's popular perception of what a GB is. That was the point I was making.

    61. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, in my great annoyance I typed something greatly annoying. I realize that 2^10 is not a megabyte. Then again, that only supports my point, right? It doesn't make any sense to call 2^10 bytes a megabyte :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    62. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by rockypg · · Score: 1

      wots the difference between a slashdotter and a non? a non thinks a kilobyte is 1000 bytes, a slashdotter thinks a kilometer is 1024 meters

    63. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by sik0fewl · · Score: 1

      Well, first off I'm going to be a computer scientist and not an electrical engineer :) I guess you're right that IEC is quite standard when it comes to computer standards. I guess I was waiting for ISO or IEEE to publish it as a standard.

      If you know of a standard that defines kilo as 2^10, please cite. :-)

      Well, there probably isn't one (I'm not gonna bother looking for it, anyway). While it isn't a standard it has been a tradition for a long time, starting at 1024b = 1kb. Seemed like a good idea at the time I guess :)

      None of which, of course, changes the fact that Joe User uses "megabyte" all the time to refer to 1,048,576 bytes, but since hard disk makers have already switched to calling 10^9 bytes a terabyte. I don't see how using the base-2 prefixes can increase the anger and frustration.

      I think harddisk manufacturers are going to be what ultimately switches everybody over to using kilo=1000, kibi=1024. I wonder if RAM manufacturers will ever do the same or start advertising in mibi/gibibytes? Using the base-2 prefixes won't increase frustration, it's the transition period that will. During the transition period (now?), whenever we see "kilobyte" we don't know if it means 1000b or 1024b

      And lets not even talk about floppy disks, where 1.44M = 2^10 * 10^3 bytes...

      Yes. Let's not talk about that :)

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
    64. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by dotwaffle · · Score: 1

      Well, I happen to use KelvinBytes all the time...

    65. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      1000 * 1024 Bytes isn't KKiB... It should be 1.44 KiKB (Kibikilobytes). 1024 Bytes is a KB, and there's a 1000 of 'em.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    66. Re:1GB = 1024MB so... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      No, K = Kilo = 10^3 = 1000, Ki = Kibi = 2^10 = 1024.
      "bi" stands for "binary".

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  12. Great way to improve your site's traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great way to improve your site's traffic.

  13. Base 2 rulez, Base 10 droolz! by lavar78 · · Score: 1

    His account maxed out at just under 1024 MB.

    --
    "Dave, I stand still--the conclusions jump to me!" - Bill McNeal, NewsRadio
  14. And your point is ? by IanBevan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mod me down as flamebait if you really must, but what really was the point of this exercise ? I'm sure Google would find it an interesting test -assuming they've not already tried it themselves - but as the author says, he's never actually told anybody at google about it. It just doesn't strike me as particularly constructive...

    1. Re:And your point is ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kevin Rose is a wannabe hacker (or cracker, whatever term you want to use) who tries to portray himself as a technology guru. This is simply another stunt to make him look cool in the eyes of script kiddies. Sad really...

    2. Re:And your point is ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      word. he also promotes Mozilla but has mentioned many times on air that he uses IE because he cant get used to moz. Sarah on the other hand while not a r33t hax0r doesnt try to be, shes just cool, uses moz, and aint a sore on the eyes.

      *ditching digital cable tomorrow, I'll keep up with the 5 minutes of TSS thats actually good via bit-torrent.

      Kevin, you suck, but dont stop making the broken, my friends and I love to laugh at them. You should do one with Ramzi social engineering peoples passwords with chocolate bars on the streets of SF.

    3. Re:And your point is ? by maynard · · Score: 1

      but as the author says, he's never actually told anybody at google about it. It just doesn't strike me as particularly constructive...

      He did say he would contact a friend at google to find out if his theory on how google compresses, stores, decompresses and presents gmail to users is in any way correct and relates to why he was unable to login. He states "[...]Gmail was able to sort things out [END THEORY]. At some point I will talk to my buddy over at Google and have him find out how they really do it." I don't watch the show and don't know who this guy is, but if he's telling the truth he would appear to have a contact at google and would seem to have the means to offer google informal feedback.

      Cheers,
      --Maynard

    4. Re:And your point is ? by kv9 · · Score: 1

      if you look at the comments list right under his article you can also pretty much get an idea of his uhm... `audience'.

    5. Re:And your point is ? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      I agree in that I don't see the point, but why should he tell anybody at google about it? He wasn't [h|cr]acking anything, just using the service they provide. Should I also ask my ISP if I can load this or that page?

    6. Re:And your point is ? by IanBevan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. He made out it was a load test.
      2. gmail is in beta; one of the points of using gmail at the moment is to report any problems you have.

    7. Re:And your point is ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Mod me down as flamebait ... but as the author says, he's never actually told anybody at google about it. It just doesn't strike me as particularly constructive...

      It's so tempting to mod you flamebait as you request, but I feel obligated to reply instead.

      If he _had_ told people in advance, it would be a much less effective test.

      If you're reviewing a restaraunt for a newspaper, do you tell them "hey, and remember I'm reviewing you" before ordering? Sure you'll get better food and serivice that way, but it would make your review quite useless.

    8. Re:And your point is ? by IanBevan · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about saying in advance ? I'm just talking about reporting what he did and the issues with his account.

    9. Re:And your point is ? by TheCyko1 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure script kiddies would look up to real hackers, the only people that look up to him are wannabe script kiddies that don't know nay better.

      --
      This message was brought to you by the death of 30 brain cells.
    10. Re:And your point is ? by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      Heh, he's on thebroken, which is kinda lame, but then, I'm kinda lame, and they interviewed The Real Kevin.

      For more lame videos, also go to pure pwnage if you're into zero hour.

      I need a life.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    11. Re:And your point is ? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Uh. Well some of us learnt a few things new about gmail.

      1) It actually goes up to 1023MB, not 1000MB.
      2) Inbound email bandwidth per account is probably more than 20Mbps.
      3) You can't login for a few days if people fill it up rapidly with 5MB attachments.

      At least some nerds would be interested.

      --
    12. Re:And your point is ? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Kevin Rose is a wannabe hacker (or cracker, whatever term you want to use) who tries to portray himself as a technology guru. "

      Sure he's not that "1337" but you're probably just jealous - he has a girlfriend and you don't, he actually gets email from nonspammers, etc etc.

      It's a US TV show, what are you expecting d'oh? As is it's already too "1337" for the TV bosses that they're dumbing down TechTV into another channel.

      --
    13. Re:And your point is ? by hetfield · · Score: 1

      And yet somehow it made the front page of Slashdot...

    14. Re:And your point is ? by KillerCow · · Score: 1

      what really was the point of this exercise?

      Agreed. A single user operating within specs does not make a "load test."

    15. Re:And your point is ? by catch23 · · Score: 1

      I'm a wannabe script kiddie! I script bash scripts! I'm also do korn shell scripts.... but then, since i'm not really a kid, I guess that would classify me as a script adultie!

    16. Re:And your point is ? by Rob_Warwick · · Score: 1
      He mentions that he hasn't talked to his friend at Google yet, and I have to wonder if his friend actually holds a position that could make something useful out of this, or if he just happens to have access to internal Google info that might clarify the 102% thing (though I think everyone here solved that one anyhow).

      Regardless, it's been Slashdotted, and I'm sure there has to be at least one guy at Google who reads Slashdot. Possibly as many as four.

      -Rob

    17. Re:And your point is ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried the same test a few months ago by having my friends e-mail me as many mp3's as they could. I filled up my Gmail account in about 3 hours. There's no doubt you get 1GB of storage so I'm not sure what the test was about. Clearly there are tens of thousands of simultaneous users testing the system so if it hasn't broken under that load it's not going to break flooding one account with attachments.

    18. Re:And your point is ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always get a chuckle when I hear how he messed up an Xbox mod (while soldering) that he had to get a repair service to fix his mistake. Dweeb.

    19. Re:And your point is ? by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 1

      The whole Kevin and Sarah thing is sickening. (And no, not because I'm jealous, I've met Sarah and she's nice enough but not my type).

      The whole show has gone to shit since Leo was canned and G4 took over, and I keep wondering what's going to happen if the Kevin/Sarah thing breaks up. They've made it part of the show, are we going to get to see them sniping at each other on air as well?

      John.

    20. Re:And your point is ? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I hardly watch TV nowadays. But I heard this reality TV thing is popular...

      Even if Kevin+Sarah don't break up, the producers might script something in. Taking a leaf from WWE et all. Cynical? Yeah :). Spin-off to their own show? Heh nah... Erm...

      I haven't seen TechTV for months, so I dunno about the Kevin and Sarah thing being sickening... Only found out on the Net some time back that they were together and making it public.

      --
  15. The best way to load test... by strredwolf · · Score: 4, Funny

    is to let everyone on Slashdot have an account, at once.

    --

    --
    # Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
    $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
  16. greatest moment ever on TSS by aardwolf204 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...Kevin and co-host of the day finish talking about fillmybox@gmail.com and switch back over to Sarah for the news...

    Sarah: "Fill my box"
    Kevin: "I will later"

    /me ROFL

    Co-host of the day turns red.

    Any words Kevin?

    --
    Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
    1. Re:greatest moment ever on TSS by nmeu · · Score: 0

      did that really happen???

    2. Re:greatest moment ever on TSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes I was watching when it happened. I'm sure striger or whatever his name is had a talk with him afterwards.

      Kev, Sarah, you guys need to be a little less obvious about your love life on air, either that or rig the playboy contest so sarah wins. that thing still going on?

    3. Re:greatest moment ever on TSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You actually watch Screensavers? Loser.

    4. Re:greatest moment ever on TSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contest ended, Morgan won, everyone declined the offer.

    5. Re:greatest moment ever on TSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is why I'll never watch TSS again... if they got rid of Kevin and Sarah and got some decent techie people in there it would be much better. Leo was the last straw, once G4 bought TechTV and he was out of there, the show's never been the same (and never will). Actually, since G4 bought Tech TV, I never watch the channel at all anymore... no point really. Nothing at all worth watching on it. Even a few of the decent shows from TechTV that they kept are just reruns, mostly shown during the weekends.

    6. Re:greatest moment ever on TSS by kfg · · Score: 1

      And if you're ever on Let's Make a Deal always remember to take Carol Merrill's box.

      KFG

    7. Re:greatest moment ever on TSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that TechTV died when it switched over to the G4-ish format. A shame. But I don't agree with Leo. Granted - Leo gets a lot of support. People love him. I didn't care one way or another; if anything, I might be a bit happier with his leaving.

    8. Re:greatest moment ever on TSS by ticklemeozmo · · Score: 1

      Happen to have a show date or a copy of the bit? I think that's worth saving

      --
      When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
    9. Re:greatest moment ever on TSS by swatoa · · Score: 2, Informative
  17. Our favorite 5 MB files...? by Mz6 · · Score: 1, Funny
    porn1.mpg
    porn2.mog
    porn3.mpg
    ...
    ...

    Ahh.. gotta love when they put the offer out there for you.

    --
    Hmmm.
    1. Re:Our favorite 5 MB files...? by gricholson75 · · Score: 3, Funny

      porn2.mog

      I'm a .mog, half man, half dog, I'm my own best friend.

    2. Re:Our favorite 5 MB files...? by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      porn2.mog

      I'm a .mog, half man, half dog, I'm my own best friend.


      Actually, porn1.mpg and porn2.mpg let you be your own best friend too.

    3. Re:Our favorite 5 MB files...? by eingram · · Score: 1

      How do you tell your porn apart? Or do you simply not care? *sigh*

    4. Re:Our favorite 5 MB files...? by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

      You mean:

      "I'm a .mog, half .mpg, half .ogg, I'm a Slashdotter's best friend."

      (yes, I know you were quoting Spaceballs...)

      --
      Freedom: "I won't!"
    5. Re:Our favorite 5 MB files...? by DonServo · · Score: 1

      .mog? KUPO!

  18. "fill my box" segment by 10+Speed · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    what is this "fill my box" segment that the comments below keep refering to?

    1. Re:"fill my box" segment by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=115848&cid= 9808280

  19. Real Results by WhatsAProGingrass · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Come on, lets here the good stuff.

    Lets here the statistics on how much porn and what types of porn you got.

    On a serious note, a lot of people would say that "nobody uses email like that". But what they don't realize is that, we will if we could. Wouldn't it be nice to advertise like that on tv and not worry about how much people mail you. Like "America's funnies home videos" or something similar, send in your video at blah@somewhere.com. It would be nice to get mass amounts of video in emails like that.

    --
    Mark
    1. Re:Real Results by kundor · · Score: 1

      Real operations like America's funniest home videos presumably have their own mail servers, and thus can get dozens of gigabytes of email. I would assume so, anyway. I mean if I, as a college student, have the resources to do that, I'm sure any corporation does.

    2. Re:Real Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real operations like America's funniest home videos presumably have their own mail servers, and thus can get dozens of gigabytes of email.

      Yeah, but they dont let you or anybody sign up for a Gigabyte account.

    3. Re:Real Results by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      consumer storage is cheep, yep. but in the datacenter where you have to consider backups, it's not as cheep as you would think. getting disk space (and hardware in general) in a datacenter is a comodity.

  20. Fill My Box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Haven't heard that from the wife in ages!

    Thanks, folks, I'll be here all week! Tip your waitresses!

    1. Re:Fill My Box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's odd. I hear it from her almost every day.

    2. Re:Fill My Box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You must have confused her by having the same Slashdot user name...

  21. Next step, try the spam filters by sssmashy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I received over 2,000 complaints from people who actually took the time to dig around and find my personal email address, I'm thinking we hit Gmail with around 50-75,000+, 5MB+ emails in a 10-15min window.

    Think of all the spam that one of these accounts could hold. I propose testing Gmail's spam filters next: disseminate your Gmail addy to porn sites, and everywhere else it will likely be harvested by a spam bot. Sit back, and let the spam roll in. It should be interesting to see just how fast this sucker fills up with ads for penis enlargers.

    1. Re:Next step, try the spam filters by afidel · · Score: 1

      That's already been done. Some other "journalist" got people all over the net to sign up a gmail account to as many spam lists as possible, it took like 10 weeks to fill it with nothing but HTML and text spam.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Next step, try the spam filters by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to get google text adverts to change to "penis enlargment" by attaching the words to every e-mail I send to people I know... does that count? :D

      google can scan my e-mails any day they wish as long as I can mess with their system to get a giggle.

      --
      I like muppets.
    3. Re:Next step, try the spam filters by Lshmael · · Score: 2, Interesting
      See Gmail Spam Filter Testing or Spam My Gmail Account (prattboy@gmail.com)

      Not surprisingly, Pratt's account maxed out at 102% or 1023 MB. Unlike Kevin Rose, Pratt's account filled up two months ago. Rose's test, however, was not about filling his account:
      [THEORY] I have a feeling this had to do with mail message processing. Google knows that 80% of mail messages are text, and we all know that text is highly compressible. That said, they probably only have around 2-300MB of storage allocated for each 1GB account (obviously this will fluctuate up to 1GB depending on the user's mail content). My take on this, is that they have a huge series of RAID arrays at their server farm. Every time an email comes in, it is compressed and stored in that users account on the RAID. Upon account login the user's data is decompressed, indexed, and moved to some type of RAM/solid state drive for quick access. Once this is complete, it is then displayed to the end user (a 1-2 second process). I have a feeling that due to the huge number of incoming emails, I had some type of processing time out occur. The server was trying to write data to my library (thousands of new msgs), while retrieve and displaying data - resulting in errors. A few days after things settled down (and a few cron jobs later), Gmail was able to sort things out [END THEORY].
    4. Re:Next step, try the spam filters by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 1
      I propose testing Gmail's spam filters next: disseminate your Gmail addy to porn sites
      Well, let's use page rank by linking his address to the words pornography and free porn!

      Problem solved. Mod me up folks, we'll turn google against itself!
      --
      I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
    5. Re:Next step, try the spam filters by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Think of all the spam that one of these accounts could hold.
      I set up a Gmail account just over a month ago (on June 23rd). After I used it for a couple of test messages with friends, I set up a few of my most spammed email accounts to forward to Gmail. As of now, I have 67497 spam messages, using 360 MB (36%) of my 1000 MB.

      Gmail has gotten better at catching spam on its own, but it's not great yet. I use SpamAssassin and score anything over 6.1 as spam. Gmail sends stuff with scores as high as 8 straight to my inbox. Granted, it's easy to set up a system that works for me; it's hard to set up a system that works for everyone.

      One thing I've found really interesting is the ability to instantly search through 67,000+ spams! It's amazing how prolific the "random words to defeat Bayesian filters" spam tactic has gone. Just about every word I've tried appears somewhere within the contents of 67,000 spams...

      Search results for: in:anywhere anthropomorphic 1 - 20 of about 80

      Search results for: in:anywhere antagonistic 1 - 20 of about 150

      Search results for: in:anywhere necromancy 1 - 20 of 61

      Search results for: in:anywhere juxtaposition 1 - 20 of 58

      Search results for: in:anywhere loquacious 1 - 20 of 51

      It's crazy. I wasted a few minutes last week searching through my Gmail spam archive trying to find a word that didn't appear anywhere, and came up with very few successes. If nothing else, Gmail is probably the world's biggest and most accurate archive of spam.
      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    6. Re:Next step, try the spam filters by taernim · · Score: 1

      Already been done. Linkage here.

      --
      "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
    7. Re:Next step, try the spam filters by managementboy · · Score: 1

      How do you do that, I have set 1.5 as my SA and still get spam?!

    8. Re:Next step, try the spam filters by k.ovaska · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Just about every word I've tried appears somewhere within the contents of 67,000 spams...

      This is probably because spammers put random words from dictionary into the messages to make spam detection harder. Thus, with enough spam, you get every word in the dictionary.

    9. Re:Next step, try the spam filters by toddestan · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's crazy. I wasted a few minutes last week searching through my Gmail spam archive trying to find a word that didn't appear anywhere, and came up with very few successes. If nothing else, Gmail is probably the world's biggest and most accurate archive of spam.

      Wow, you just came up with a new form of Googlewhacking! I'm impressed!

  22. Re:Roger, you should change your password by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and what exactly is a joke?

  23. Whoah by einer · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking we hit Gmail with around 50-75,000+, 5MB+ emails in a 10-15min window.

    Hopefully google didn't take that personally.

    I'd like to know if his theory about the compressed storage leading to a timeout condition is realistic.

    1. Re:Whoah by Kris_J · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I can tell you that the theory is realistic, having run several compressed filesystems and generally having an interest in (transparent) compression, but I can't say if it's correct. It sounds a little wrong as it's fairly easy to say "no, don't try to compress files with extension X because it won't work". More likely Gmail choked on the decoding of attachments -- as you wouldn't store them in a wasteful 7-bit format.

      I hammered my own gmail account by forwarding up all my old messages using an Eudora filter. I was sending as many as 2,000 messages in a 15 minute period at one stage. While Gmail didn't lock me out, some messages took a particularly long time to appear. These messages were typically old automated receipts, such as eBay messages, that all look very similar but are in fact separate conversations. I'm guessing that there's a lot of overhead when a message arrives to determine if it's related to existing messages.

  24. false advertising, and email wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That Gmail let him go over his 1000 MB limit is interesting, or rather, that the limit is exactly 1000 MBs is interesting, as Gmail has been toting its accounts as 1 GB accounts (1 gig = 1024 MBs ).

    24 megabytes is a substantial difference for most email users.

    Would advertising it as 1 GB be then considered false? Or would it not matter, because they let you fill up your account to near 1024 GBs, anyway? (1023 was what Kevin Rose reached before it said he reached his quota).

    On another note, I did get an email from MSN about how it will begin to offer 2 GBs of space...

    Is this the beginning of email wars? (a-la browser wars, "back in the day")

    1. Re:false advertising, and email wars by Quill_28 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >24 megabytes is a substantial difference for most email users.

      It is if you have 10MB or 100MB,
      but not when you have 1000 megabytes.

      100K of memory was alot when all you had was 640K, but 100k is nothing to most users nowadays.

    2. Re:false advertising, and email wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As has been pointed a billion times, 1 GB == 1000 megabytes. 1 GiB (gigibyte) == 1024 mebibytes.

      RTFD.

    3. Re:false advertising, and email wars by Yolegoman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I doubt that the space is all that the users care about. I was quite content with 5 megs of space until the spam-bots got a hold of my Yahoo account.

      No, the real deal is archiving all of your old email and the ability to search through it all, as well as targeted advertising... I detest picture-advertising... most kinds, that is. pr0n's another story.

      One of the other factors that makes the service so appealing to me is I trust Google, unlike Microsoft or Yahoo, to not sell my email address. When the company who gave you the email address is handing it out to the spammers (or spamming the box themselves), something is wrong.

      - Yolegoman

    4. Re:false advertising, and email wars by zeromemory · · Score: 1

      100K of memory was alot when all you had was 640K, but 100k is nothing to most users nowadays.

      The memory analogy doesn't work. 100k of memory is nothing to users these days because it can barely hold the smallest of applications.

      24 MB of mail storage, on the other hand, is still a lot since mail is still mostly text.

    5. Re:false advertising, and email wars by lakeland · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nobody can read 1GB of text. Therefore the only way to use a gig of email is if either a) it isn't text, or b) you're not actually reading it.

      For instance people getting MPEGs in the mail won't notice the difference between 1000MB and 1024MB. Similarly, people subscribed to a dozen mailinglists, hoping to use google to quickly find any message, won't notice the difference since a few days email will fill up the difference.

      To make it really clear... say you can read 100 text emails a day. Now, if those emails are text they'll be about 5k, or around half a meg a day. So you're talking about six _years_ worth of email before you fill your box, with the extra 24MB getting you an extra month on your six years. For people getting ten text emails a day worth keeping, 1GB will probably hold enough email for life.

    6. Re:false advertising, and email wars by Laebshade · · Score: 1

      Would advertising it as 1 GB be then considered false?

      Would you hold hard drive manufacturers accountable for false advertising then? Most advertise their drives in gigabytes, when they really equate to a base 10 conversion (think 1,000,000 kB for every gigabyte, as opposed to the actual 1,048,576 kB for every gigabyte).

    7. Re:false advertising, and email wars by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If you are an idiot, lackey, or bitch.

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    8. Re:false advertising, and email wars by Tesral · · Score: 1
      One of the other factors that makes the service so appealing to me is I trust Google, unlike Microsoft or Yahoo, to not sell my email address. When the company who gave you the email address is handing it out to the spammers (or spamming the box themselves), something is wrong.

      Like many computer users I have a couple of hotmail accounts for spam catching. I go in once a week and flush it out. I don't read any of it I just flush it out.

      I created one address as a joke, I sent one mail, got the reaction I wanted, and promptly forgot about it. Well, when the week rolled around I check it and sure enough, it caught nearly as much spam as my advertised address. Some of it within hours of the creation.

      But we all know what hotmail is for, don't we.

      --
      Garry AKA -Phoenix- Rising Above the Flames
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
    9. Re:false advertising, and email wars by Fweeky · · Score: 1
      -% du -sh Mail
      4.8G Mail
      -% du -ch Mail/SPAM* Mail/archive/*/SPAM*/* |tail -1
      826M total
      My email since November 2001. Does gmail at least make it easy to export mails from it?
    10. Re:false advertising, and email wars by lakeland · · Score: 1

      Hmm,
      2.8M /mnt/usb/emerg-mail-backup/2004.07.20
      1.6M /mnt/usb/emerg-mail-backup/2004.07.21
      1.6M /mnt/usb/emerg-mail-backup/2004.07.22
      1.4M /mnt/usb/emerg-mail-backup/2004.07.23
      1.5M /mnt/usb/emerg-mail-backup/2004.07.24
      1.2M /mnt/usb/emerg-mail-backup/2004.07.25
      1.6M /mnt/usb/emerg-mail-backup/2004.07.26
      1.7M /mnt/usb/emerg-mail-backup/2004.07.27

      Guess you're just more popular than me ;-)

      gmail doesn't have terribly good support for export; I've seen a POP3 interface but it didn't work so well. I guess as it gets more popular the tools will improve.

      The import tools are still fairly primitive too -- I found some emails took forever to import (invariably spam), with no skipping support.

    11. Re:false advertising, and email wars by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I seriously hope you were joking with that post :-P

    12. Re:false advertising, and email wars by cephyn · · Score: 1

      Totally untrue. Because most people have their email include the text from replies, so if you have lots of email conversations, its adding 5k to each email. the 4th email will be 20k. the 6th, 30k. It adds up fast.

      --
      Moo.
    13. Re:false advertising, and email wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For people getting ten text emails a day worth keeping, 1GB will probably hold enough email for life.

      People who only get ten e-mails per day are more likely to be getting pictures of newborn kids from their friends & relatives.

      At a few meg each, they'll manage to fill up the GMail account pretty quick.

  25. Woops! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That post would have sucked a whole lot less ass if I had entered my numbers right. 1 GiB is not 10^30 bytes, it's 2^30 bytes. My sincerest apologies for correcting you in a way that requires correction itself.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Woops! by shaitand · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Drinky, your still not fully corrected. While those notations do exist, they serve little purpose and aren't likely to ever be widely adopted.

      I can write a new notation on a napkin or a webpage, that doesn't make it correct. Only widespread acceptance can do that. And outside of a few engaging in debates regarding the subject on slashdot, nobody has accepted it.

      Personally I might be more inclined it they reversed the standard *B's and *iB's. Since the correct value for *B's was always powers of 2, the marketing guys should be the ones forced to move to *iB.

      Do that and I'll accept the change... since it's the tech industry that has to adopt it to make it stick, not the marketing industry, they need to cater to making US not have to change anything.

      If they do it that way, we change nothing we do, and completely ignore the rest of the notation (since there is no use for any of it outside marketing) and carry on blissfully wife our lives.

    2. Re:Woops! by Kris_J · · Score: 2, Informative
      Drinky, your still not fully corrected.
      you're .
    3. Re:Woops! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's not an issue of "the marketing guys" though. It's an issue of what is and is not correct. Kilo is defined not as 2^10 but as 10^3. Why should it mean one thing for computers, and something else for everything else? The computer world is the only place in which kilo is used to mean 2^10 and that is a stupid and annoying inconsistency which leads to misunderstandings. The fact that the hard drive people switched to the real meaning of kilo/mega/giga for purely selfish reasons doesn't change this, though it does make them asses.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Woops! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I agree with you about kilo (although here in the US the only things we measure in kilos are cocaine and heroine).

      However I think a better solution is to make the k in kilobyte stand for something else and continue to use the standard abbreviations. Again still forcing the marketing guys to use the *iB units.

    5. Re:Woops! by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I can write a new notation on a napkin or a webpage, that doesn't make it correct. Only widespread acceptance can do that. And outside of a few engaging in debates regarding the subject on slashdot, nobody has accepted it.

      Look here for info...
      To tell the truth, I think that in order for it to be "accepted," it has to be inducted into some French museum, and correlated in some way to a KG sized bar of silver, or something.

      Being widespread doesn't make right. There is a widespread use of "your" in place of "you're" and "axe" in place of "ask." Neither of these usages is correct, but they have widespread acceptance.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    6. Re:Woops! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Being widespread doesn't make right. There is a widespread use of "your" in place of "you're" and "axe" in place of "ask." Neither of these usages is correct, but they have widespread acceptance"

      Language is defined by common usage. What has widespread acceptance today, will inevitably make it's way into the textbooks and oxford dictionary.

      You see, it's people and perception and usage that define these things. Text books are merely an outdated attempt to reflect that usage.

  26. conspiracy theories by F2F · · Score: 2, Interesting

    we all want to know how google does it, don't we?

    here's what he thinks:

    Google knows that 80% of mail messages are text, and we all know that text is highly compressible. That said, they probably only have around 2-300MB of storage allocated for each 1GB account (obviously this will fluctuate up to 1GB depending on the user's mail content). My take on this, is that they have a huge series of RAID arrays at their server farm. Every time an email comes in, it is compressed and stored in that users account on the RAID.

    this should be closer to the truth: Venti: a new approach to archival storage

    1. Re:conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone want to summarize this for me? TFA is too long and boring.

    2. Re:conspiracy theories by kaitou · · Score: 1

      Doesn't starbucks own a trademark on this? google archive of article

    3. Re:conspiracy theories by rnicey · · Score: 4, Informative

      What he thinks is most likely a bunch of rot.

      Decompress a gig on the fly when you login. Please... Do me a lemon.

      The real trick is in the routing for this type of application. When mail is delivered it is switched to a bank of servers which deal with your account (and many others obviously). The messages are indexed and stored.

      When you login there will be a range of load balanced servers routing your read requests back to that same bank of storage from the frontline web servers.

      Limit management is either done in the application logic, or in the database engine. Under load, with simultaneous receipts it's easy to see why you could go over 100% of storage. It's either that or you have to serialize the delivery per user which would suck and be harder.

      It's not a hard concept, but it is tricky to get right in implementation. This is what Google does best though.

    4. Re:conspiracy theories by rbrome · · Score: 1

      What I find really interesting is that Gmail performance is obviously account-specific. I can attest to this personally.

      I get over 3,000 spam daily. My Gmail account is 48% full, and that's all spam. I don't use Gmail for file storage or anything like that.

      I don't try to attract spam; this is not some special "test". I just really like my current email address, which I've had since '96. ...and GMail is generally a painful experience for me. It's incredibly slow with endless timeouts. It's been like this *consistently* for over two weeks now. My connection is fine - all other sites are speedy as heck.

      So why is Gmail so consistently slow for me, but so consistently fine for others? Doesn't that defy the general logic about properly load-balanced web apps?

      It's almost like Google has some kind of intentional, active throttling in place for the more demanding accounts...

    5. Re:conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >Decompress a gig on the fly when you login.

      >Please... Do me a lemon.


      actually it's more like 'decompress ~60 lines of plaintext each time user clicks some message subject'. It would be quite stupid solution to decompress all the mails at once, would it?

  27. Re:Roger, you should change your password by Xenothaulus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    awesome

  28. huh huh uh huh huh by gwoodrow · · Score: 5, Funny

    [beavisandbutthead]

    uh huh huh
    uh huh huh
    "fill my box"
    uh huh huh

    [/beavisandbutthead]

    1. Re:huh huh uh huh huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [beavisandbutthead]

      uh huh huh
      uh huh huh
      "Load Test"
      uh huh huh

      "Like, Gmail got tested by Kevin Roses Load"
      uh hehehehe
      uh huh huhuh

      [/beavisandbutthead]

  29. Big emails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be nice if Gmail would have an option to not quote everything. Conversations become really huge after a certain point and then you're stuck seeing single e-mails becoming a meg in size without any attachments. Then the replies just build in size. I'm not really sure why they get to be so big when it should just be plain text.

  30. Only 300mb of compressed data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I surely hope not, isn't this false advertising? What about opening another box so we can fill it up with highly compressed data.

  31. Re:Roger, you should change your password by solios · · Score: 1

    Verily.

    Kind of poetic to see the complete definition of dookie on slashdot.

  32. Goes to 102%.... by vwjeff · · Score: 5, Funny

    The question has finally been answered.

    Why is Gmail the best free webmail?

    ANSWER: Your inbox goes to 102%!!!

    1. Re:Goes to 102%.... by sdo1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Awesome. Email for Spinal Tap!

      --
      --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    2. Re:Goes to 102%.... by nfg05 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, Hotmail allows you to fill about 110% of your capacity before it actually starts to bounce messages. Right now it's a measly 2 MB, but it should be increased to 250 MB in the next few weeks.

    3. Re:Goes to 102%.... by MikeXpop · · Score: 5, Informative

      While this is funny and all, I'll explain.

      Google offers 1 GB, or 1000 MB, of space. They do this as to not confuse non-tech folk. When you reach 1000 megs, it's 100% full. When you reach the actual limit of 1024 megs, it's 102% full.

      Oh, and back when yahoo had a 4 meg limit, my throway's account would gather up spam and it would stop me at 5 megs, or 125% of the limit. No idea what happens now that it's 100 megs.

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    4. Re:Goes to 102%.... by mog007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This was actully a very good test for Gmail, it showed a possible error in the code that locked out an account that had either too much activity, or went over its limit. That's what beta testing is all about, and Google would do well to acknowledge the problem and correct it.

    5. Re:Goes to 102%.... by secolactico · · Score: 4, Funny

      No idea what happens now that it's 100 megs

      One way to find out... post your address and we'll send you our favorite attachements. I have a video of Osama committing suicide that you might find interesting... ;-)

      --
      No sig
    6. Re:Goes to 102%.... by name773 · · Score: 1

      cat /dev/urandom > file.attach :)

    7. Re:Goes to 102%.... by eeeuh · · Score: 2, Informative
      no no!
      dd if=/dev/urandom of=/tmp/file.attach bs=1024k count=5
      :P
    8. Re:Goes to 102%.... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Oh, and back when yahoo had a 4 meg limit, my throway's account would gather up spam and it would stop me at 5 megs, or 125% of the limit. No idea what happens now that it's 100 megs.

      Ha! I fart in your general direction. I'm so old school, my yahoo account had the 6MB limit.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    9. Re:Goes to 102%.... by fuzzix · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm so old school, my yahoo account had the 6MB limit.

      I'm so old-school my Yahoo account had (still has, actually) free POP3 and SMTP access.

      And I'm not that old-school.
    10. Re:Goes to 102%.... by thebes · · Score: 0

      Those of us with .ca addresses didn't get screwed like the .com people. We always had 6 MB and pop and smtp access....never lost it. And we got the boost in inbox size at the same time the .com addresses did. Nice day to be Canadian folk.

    11. Re:Goes to 102%.... by fuzzix · · Score: 1

      I was .co.uk - .ie addresses weren't available on Yahoo at the time - not that this was a major concern :)

    12. Re:Goes to 102%.... by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      I'm so oldschool I have a yahoo mail account with @rocketmail.com after it.. ;)

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    13. Re:Goes to 102%.... by fuzzix · · Score: 1

      Holy shit! Look at your ICQ#! :)

    14. Re:Goes to 102%.... by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      lol.. not that low... my first icq # was like high 4 digits iirc, but I wasn't on there for a l-o-n-g time, from like 94-95 until late 97-98, and didn't have the same email address.. so alas, it's gone..

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  33. Can't we flame about Kevin Rose instead.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't we just flame about Kevin Rose? I can't stand him! He's such an annoying know-it-all jerk!

    1. Re:Can't we flame about Kevin Rose instead.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be a know-it-all, one must actually know things. I don't give Kevin Rose that much credit.

    2. Re:Can't we flame about Kevin Rose instead.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, so does that make him a don't-know-it-all?

  34. If you have kids... by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you have kids named Arthur MyDoom, are you going to stick to the old standard (Arthur MyDoom the 3rd, the 4th, etc), or the new approach - Arthur MyDoom.B, Arthur MyDoom.C, Arthur MyDoom.D...?

    1. Re:If you have kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, his father was Arthur MyDoom 3rd, and his son will be Arthur MyDoom. Accident with a contraceptive and a time machine.

  35. That email address sounds like.. by chamcham · · Score: 0

    ..something that belongs on a porno.

  36. Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they even let him talk? He's a script kiddie with a show. Real security experts write code and understand protocols, rfcs, reverse engineer, etc. I know I can't be the only one who thinks this.

    I'm surprised he hasn't had anything compromised yet. Perhaps he has been and I don't know it.

    On his site: "Kevin is currently writing a book on computer security." This should be interesting. I will definitly buy it (probably in the Fiction section at Amazon). Perhaps the book will come out right after DNF.

  37. What a pointless load of tosh! by MarkTina · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is the point in his test ? Did he think that Google hadn't done any testing at all ? Did he think that if a mailbox hit 100% something dreadful would happen ? Of course it's going to work just fine, 1Mb, 10Mb, 100Mb, 1000Mb or even 10,000Mb is just a tiny dribble in the ocean that is Googles' infrastructure. He's just looking for some kind of kudos ... "Hey dude I filled up my Gmail account!" "Wow! That's so ... so ... actually that's pretty lame .."

    1. Re:What a pointless load of tosh! by SishGupta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It didnt work just fine though. He was unable to access his account for several days. RTFA?

    2. Re:What a pointless load of tosh! by DrCash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It wasn't really a test. It was more of a publicity stunt for the Screen Savers (and gmail). He was obviously really excited about being one of the first kids on the block to have a gmail account, plus, google probably paid TechTV huge $$$ to pull of the stunt, so that it would help to promote the service,... ;-)

    3. Re:What a pointless load of tosh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Mod this the hell up. I mean, who ACTUALLY sends a gig of e-mail in under a few minutes to one address? Are there e-mail accounts that get this volume, and more importantly, was gmail designed as a solution for this type of use? The answer is not only "no", but "No; um, we didn't think of that when designing the test...."

      Consider
      1. E-mail is meant to be read, ultimately. The email arrives faster than it can be read, unless the point of the test was to stress the filters. To test that correctly, you would have to send 100% crap that all should get filtered out. But the test didn't do this. Instead, random people sent random things, some likely spam and some likely not spam. There's not controlled experiment here.
      2. So, let's be generous and suppose he intended to measure gmails ability to handle volumes. Let's suppose the test shows gmail handles X megs per time unit. So what? So long as you don't drop mail, isn't even a very small value for X adequate for email? This is an EMAIL service, not BANDWIDTH service that google provides....
      3. With any experiment, you need to state the purpose of a test. What is being measured? Why? Are we measuring filter efficiency? It's hard to say, since random strangers sent him mail, and he does not know what percent got through successfully. Did he measure burst throughput? Again, hard to say because he cannot measure drops, and had no control over what and when things were sent. What the hell is he trying the measure? (Or, if he's just measuring random things, I have a better idea: take a tape measure and report the lengths of random trees in a forest--this is about as useful an undertaking.)


      I suspect the test was just designed to fill up the mail box so he could experiment with search features in the gmail interface. But here's a better way to do this: generate 1G of mail as a test set (use a spam archive), and put it into a sql database. Then, also forward this to your gmail account. Next, conduct queries, and measure speed, convenience, etc. What can't gmail do? How fast is it compared to other valid benchmarks (e.g., sql)?
      What's the benefit of this? Well, you can make the exact same set of inputs available to others, so they can perform their own tests. This is the hallmark of scientific study: reproducible results. It's completely absent from this "study". (I use that word very generously.)

      What a pointless exercise this was. If he just wanted to have fun and play with gmail, then mission accomplished. Blog away about what you did as a prank on your own account. But sure as hell don't call this crap 'science' or a 'study'. It demeans those who do good science for a living.
    4. Re:What a pointless load of tosh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it fails as a scientific experiment, but it sounds like a decent test to me. Real-world usage is never so clean as a labratory test, so having people flood one address is a valid stress test, which I'm sure Google has not been able to coordinate yet. Short of posting an spammer's address to Slashdot, you probably can't hit much harder. If Google didn't learn something useful from this, even if it's just that they really can handle the load, then I would be surprised.

  38. I've been doing my own load testing. by Steamhead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I signed up my GMail account to every Apple mailing list, mainly because I am a developer and want a searchable archive of exactly the mailing lists i want.

    1. Re:I've been doing my own load testing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't Apple provide a search interface to the archives? Seems like a waste to me.

    2. Re:I've been doing my own load testing. by Steamhead · · Score: 1

      Indeed they do, however it isn't as good as google search, and considering I have email with my domain, what else am I going to do with my GMail account :).

    3. Re:I've been doing my own load testing. by Nikker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually I think this is a awesome idea. Never before has it been this easy to "harvest" information with this possibility for results.
      With 1 GB of room for error (viagra, et al) and if threaded emails could somehow be grouped by 'genre' where "Hardware" could be linked even multiple times to other groups that may contain subjects such as "Wish list", "Computers" or "Technology" ....

      With a good eye for mailing lists and other correspondence you could even build your own 'supper site' that you could share with others in part or in whole in form of links (ranges of..)

      Even would give google a good test on how people would really search for information... For example for 'hardware' you may add apple, ibm, linux ;)... and see what people keep and throw away or what becomes popular with others via sharing.

      OR even dare to think Google with all their power, wealth and genious would host sites that would allow others check out your 'public collection' you could also have files hosted to others right from google. Thus making it the number one hot spot for attention via any browser. Think of it as an ultimate blog...

      Even possibly you could have people reply back to your email address in 'public mode' that would allow the site to dynamicaly grow and be interacted without the direct intervention of the owner of the address / site. Who could of course shut it down at any time keeping all notes that were submitted while it was up for public interraction under personal view (as a cool momento :)

      Now that would be cool!!!

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
  39. Uh I know this off topic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot's formatting is currently seriosuly screwed up in Mozilla, except here on the post comment page. The comments and the front page all have the menu all the way at the bottom with the stories being full page width.

    1. Re:Uh I know this off topic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here.. IE6.0 sp1

    2. Re:Uh I know this off topic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same in safari...

    3. Re:Uh I know this off topic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey man, it's CmdrTaco's new SLASHCODE 2.2. It has a much lighter and airy look and feel. He got rid of all those links (that no one ever uses).

    4. Re:Uh I know this off topic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm using Firefox, darling of the OSS/Slashdot crowd and the text and header bars are bleeding into the left hand columns. Most times when I do load the comments page it'll look like someone widened the page, bless their hearts, but fifty reloads later the entire thing lines up and works.

      Hey Malda, switch to xhtml already you fat fucking prick cocksucker.

  40. Slashdot main page looks weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At 10:15pm Monday night, the Slashdot main page looks weird. Anyone?

  41. I was having trouble logging in too by JazzXP · · Score: 1

    Seemed to be around about that time too. Maybe it was related. Some of the guys here at work were fine though. Maybe logins are always directed to a single server (not just the storage of the emails).

  42. Video Clip by Uneasysilence · · Score: 1

    Anyone have a video clip of the segment I can host? _dan http://www.uneasysilence.com

  43. RAID to RAM? Really!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google stored email in a RAID and then moves it to RAM when you want it? That's his theory?

    Whatta idiot. Clue to "The Dark Tipper": EVERY application moves data from disk to RAM so it can be worked on.

    To think the geniuses at G4 decided they build The Screen Savers show around him because he was under 30. G4TECHTV is more doomed than ever.

    1. Re:RAID to RAM? Really!!!! by Bilange · · Score: 1

      The key is: Since there will be alot of users, compressing data is the key. Who cares if the uncompressed part is kept in memory or in /tmp ?

      --
      "...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
  44. Video Clip Followup by Uneasysilence · · Score: 2, Informative
    Whoops forgot the email.

    If you have the clip e-mail me at admin (at) uneasysilence.com I would love to host it

    _dan

    http://www.uneasysilence.com

  45. That great sigh of disappointment you hear... by sdo1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    That great sigh of disappointment you hear is the sound of thousands of porn site administrators realizing that one of the gmail account names they really wanted has been taken...

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
  46. I'm missing Leo Laporte. by MsGeek · · Score: 2

    G4TechTV sux0rz. Curse you, Comcast! Curse you!

    (Yeah, I know he's on KFI Radio here in LA. Whatever, I miss him on TSS.)

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  47. Say what? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

    gspot@fillmybox.com sounds like a porn webmaster email. No wonder he wants all these attachments.

    1. Re:Say what? by tekkitan · · Score: 1

      hey i own fillmybox.com :P

  48. Re:I need a gmail account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you want one?

    Seriously.

    It's just fucking webmail.

  49. Re:OH GROSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck you liar, i went through the trouble of opening the link because of you, then never got to see dead bodies, dipshit

  50. Re:GMAIL IS GAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who needs colocation or a business line? Just get a cheap virtual server. Plenty of power to host you and your family/friends' email.

  51. Re:I want an invitation... by rhedin · · Score: 2

    done.

    enjoy.

    rob.

  52. what has this acheived you ask? by spir0 · · Score: 1

    well, now we know that when you max out your gmail mailbox, you will no longer be able to send it mail.

    That's fantastic.

    i would have put that account to /much/ more constructive use.

    how much does this guy get paid?

    --
    The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
  53. Re:I need a gmail account by chriskzoo5 · · Score: 1

    send me your email addy to hollman2@gmail.com and I'll give you one.

  54. Ladies and Gents... by Uneasysilence · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The video is hosted at http://www.uneasysilence.com. I love the line right before the caller. Check it out!

  55. I have this problem 2 weeks ago by Jayanef · · Score: 0

    http://yulian.firdaus.or.id/komentar.php?id=176_0_ 1_5_C
    1GB=1024MB
    why google calculate 1GB=1000MB?

    --
    -- There is four mistake in this sentences.
  56. Kevin might enjoy the /.ing by dfj225 · · Score: 1

    Now Kevin will have load tests for his web server too!

    --
    SIGFAULT
  57. gmail invite? by rohan_leader · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Oh, I must be the only nerd on slashdot that doesn't have a gmail account yet. Since everybody's asking, would anybody mind sending a spare gmail invite to me?

    My (hopefully, soon to be obsolete) email addy is rohan_leader@hotmail.com

    Thanks so much :)

    1. Re:gmail invite? by CMRichar · · Score: 1

      we would, but wouldnt you know it? last /i/ was aware, hotmail blocks gmail invites. it's a pisser, innit?

      --
      "Good night, good work, sleep well, I'll most likely kill you in the morning." - Dread Pirate Roberts
    2. Re:gmail invite? by rohan_leader · · Score: 1, Interesting

      good point, i've just done the research :)

      In that case, you can send it to my obscure isp address at hungyao@telus.net. Hopefully, they haven't done any funny business with blocking invites.

      Thanks :)

    3. Re:gmail invite? by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

      Dig the invite out of your sent mail and resend it manually. I haven't tested this, but it might work. If that fails, maybe use xrl.us or some other link shortener.

  58. Re:I want an invitation... by ryanvm · · Score: 1

    Thanks buddy.
    Ryan

  59. selling addresses by Savet+Hegar · · Score: 1

    "One of the other factors that makes the service so appealing to me is I trust Google, unlike Microsoft or Yahoo, to not sell my email address. When the company who gave you the email address is handing it out to the spammers (or spamming the box themselves), something is wrong." What purpose would Yahoo have for selling e-mail addresses? They just route it into their bulk mail folder to be easily deleted anyway. Surely this isn't a long term advertising option. That's like paying for direct mailings, only to have the distributing company put them directly into the customers' trash cans on trash day.

    --
    Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
  60. Verification testing by AuMatar · · Score: 1

    All good bugs need to be verified to make sure they realy exist. SO anyone want to give me a gmail invite so I can verify the login bug for the good of mankind?

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  61. load test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i too would like to load test my gmail account.
    please mail me your fav porn movies.
    thanks

  62. Re:heh heh eh heh heh by PeteQC · · Score: 2, Funny

    [Peter Griffin]

    eh heh heh
    eh heh heh
    "fill my box"
    eh heh heh
    eh heh heh
    "diarrhea"
    eh heh heh

    [/Peter Griffin]

    --
    Montreal - Best city to live in!
  63. Gmail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok.. I'll whore for one too :-)

    planetmonkey (at) hotmail.com , anyone, please?

    ty!

  64. Whoopie he filled up his Gmail account by lewp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How many thousands of people had already done that?

    --
    Game... blouses.
    1. Re:Whoopie he filled up his Gmail account by lewp · · Score: 1

      What's so Flamebait about that? This guy does something that anyone with half a brain could have done (mind you, he needed the help of a national TV audience to do it, too) and it's news?

      Heaven help us if he actually does something really notable. He'd probably get a free blowjob from CmdrTaco.

      --
      Game... blouses.
  65. This just in..Gmail whoring... by vayu · · Score: 0


    err.. anyone has some spare gmail invitation.. please help me out..

    I dont want the last person on earth to get an gmail account ;)

    Please donate..you will be rewarded in heaven.. ;)

  66. The "fill my box" recording: Download by Fog+Dogg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the segment from g4techtv captured by me: http://www.members.shaw.ca/fog_dogg_69/fillmybox.w mv

    1. Re:The "fill my box" recording: Download by philipx · · Score: 1

      ... and here's your Cease & Desist written by us. MPAA

      --
      __________
      Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace!
  67. [OT] Why SI rules by Mick+Ohrberg · · Score: 3, Funny

    SI rules. Of course it makes sense to have water freeze at 32 degrees instead of 0, and boil at 212 instead of 100... And why the hell would you want to mess with turning 1 kilometer into 1,000 meters, when you can turn 1 mile into 5,280 feet! And to realize that 1 liter is 1,000 milliliters is stupid, since we can instead make 1 gallon (US, liquid - or 0.86 gallon US dry - or 0.83 gallon UK) into 128 fl.oz. I rest my case.

    --

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

    1. Re:[OT] Why SI rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ALERT ALERT ALERT
      Instance of Metric system detected,. You will be arrested under the US Patriot Act. The Metric system is un-American. You must be a member of the Axis of Evil. We will be in touch shortyly.
      George W.
      ALERT ALERT ALERT

    2. Re:[OT] Why SI rules by kscguru · · Score: 1
      And the metric system isn't arbitrary? Original definitions:

      1 meter = 1 ten-millionth of the distance from the north pole to the equator, through Paris, France.

      1 gram = mass of one cubic centimeter of water... at 4 DEGREES CELCIUS.

      1 second ... well, the second was in the Imperial system first, and it still follows the same units.

      --

      A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire

    3. Re:[OT] Why SI rules by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe 4 degrees C was chosen as that is the temperature at which water is most dense. Not a number picked out of nowhere.

    4. Re:[OT] Why SI rules by tarunthegreat2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Water goes through an unusual expansion between 0 deg and 4 deg celcius, (which is why you have water under a layer of ice)Water is most dense at 4 degrees, and that it why . Anyway, you're totally off on the second and the gram. The SI unit is KILOGram, not gram. , and that is defined by a lump of metal of that weightLink. Also the definition of a metre has been redefined as the distance it takes light to travel in certain amount of time. Finally, the second is defined as the time it takes a certain amount of radioactive material to decay. All links here. Nothing arbitrary about it. And that still doesn't explain how we're better off not using simple measurements like the Kilometre, The Centigrade scale and others.

    5. Re:[OT] Why SI rules by kscguru · · Score: 1
      *sigh*. I usually don't mind being flamed, but for someone trying to correct me, you completely missed the mark...

      I cited the original definitions (as specified in 1791). One meter is one ten-millionth of the distance from the north pole to the equator through Paris, France. Alas, the Earth's physical dimensions vary over time, and the original measurement wasn't all that accurate anyways... so the meter has been redefined as a measurement against a specific bar (late 19th century), a multiple of a light wavelength (1960s), and is now a function of the speed of light in a perfect vacuum and time (1983). The meter itself is as much an arbitrary unit as any measure before it; we just got smarter with the base-10 prefixes.

      The second? Yes, you managed to find the modern definition of the second, but once again failed to consider where that definition came from. I can't recall the origin of 24 (I believe it is Greek, possibly due to 12 (hours of daylight) being a mythically complete number, being a multiple of 2, 3, 4, and 6), but the 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour are from the base-60 Babylonian numbering system. Completely arbitrary! However, the earth's rotational period does vary slightly (and has in fact slowed down by a handful of seconds in the past several thousand years, if I recall correctly), so scientists fixed the second at something somewhat more constant (a cesium clock). Very precise, but still a modern embedding of an absurdly arbitrary (and ancient!) constant.

      And finally, SI units... you are correct, the SI unit is the kilogram. But SI is not, in fact, the metric system - SI is very modern, while the metric system is over two hundred years old. When defined, both the kilogram (a cubic decimeter) and gram (a cubic centimeter) were set simultaneously - at the freezing point of water (0 celcius). The temperature was later moved to 4 celcius for exactly the reason you describe, yet that is still not entirely accurate - the full definition is 4 celcius at one atmosphere due to pressure effects on density (and defining one atmosphere is another matter entirely...). [As a curiosity, the kilogram is the most unstable of the fundamental measures - it is the only one still defined with respect to a specific object.]

      Getting back on topic at long last... the rest of the SI units are so phenomenally screwy that having 1024 bytes to a kilobyte, and so on, is downright sane. (What's not sane, however, is that byte RATES, e.g. 1 Mb/sec, are powers of ten! See any networking text for confirmation...)

      --

      A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire

    6. Re:[OT] Why SI rules by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      The original definitions don't matter though, they always must be arbitrary. Excepting certain circumstances like time (where there are specific real world situations to match up to, that would really mess peoples minds up to decimalise) it is the relationships between the units that matter. We don't care how a metre is defined, only that you can conveniently convert between it and other measures.

    7. Re:[OT] Why SI rules by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I cited the original definitions (as specified in 1791)... the SI units are so phenomenally screwy

      All the changes in definitions you describe were irrelevant in practice for any except cutting-edge scientists at the time. I don't think any actually changed the value of the units by 1/1000, probably much less. And besides, for something like a century Imperial units have been defined with reference to metric standards: 1 inch is defined as 25.4 mm.

    8. Re:[OT] Why SI rules by adam+mcmaster · · Score: 1

      In 1893, Congress adopted the metric standards, the official meter and kilogram bars supplied by BIPM, as the standards for all measurement in the U.S. This didn't mean that metric units had to be used, but since that time the customary units have been defined officially in terms of metric standards. Currently, the foot is legally defined to be exactly 0.3048 meter and the pound is legally defined to equal exactly 453.59237 grams.

      That's from here.

      I know you were joking, but I just had to point that out.

    9. Re:[OT] Why SI rules by adam+mcmaster · · Score: 1

      but the 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour are from the base-60 Babylonian numbering system.

      As a side note, if the Earth's orbit was a perfect circle (or the Sun's orbit around the Earth, as the Babylonian's probably thought was the case) then our system for measuring time would fit perfectly with measuring angles in circles. There'd be 360 days in a year, so each degree of orbit would be one day. Each of the 12 months would be 30 days in length, which again relates nicely to the Babylonian number system and the use of the number 12 that you mentioned before.

      It's simply beautiful. It's just a shame the Earth's orbit is an Ellipse...

    10. Re:[OT] Why SI rules by egomaniac · · Score: 1

      Finally, the second is defined as the time it takes a certain amount of radioactive material to decay

      No, it is defined by the frequency of oscillation between two energy states of Cesium-133.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    11. Re:[OT] Why SI rules by xtrapwr · · Score: 1

      There is one very important place where Imperial is infact superiour to SI. I give you construction sites. The ability of feet and yards to easily devide by both 2 and 3 make them much easier units of measurement to deal with in contruction. I'll make a 3 inch cut over a .33 meter cut anyday.

  68. And, in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  69. I'm not a hater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not a hater but Kevin Rose seems to take every opportunity he can to get onto Slashdot for something not-so-big.

    I know plenty of his friends and followers submit his stories in the past (hell he has been linked on the front of slashdot at least 4 or 5 times) for every little thing he does.

    Makes you wonder if he asks them to help him do it or what.

    Again, I'm not trying to sound like a hater but I just notice this pattern happening.

  70. Fill my Box? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    I'll now be taking bets on which type of pr0n takes up the greatest percentage of this test.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  71. Save me from yahoo by darin3200 · · Score: 1

    Could any kind and generous slashdotter save me from yahoo mail with a gmail invite?

  72. Extra invite, anyone? by NineNine · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, I know, -1 Offtopic, but I'd appreciate a hookup! ninenine_99@yahoo.com

    Thanks!

    1. Re:Extra invite, anyone? by trs998 · · Score: 1

      tristan.scott@at@uea.ac.uk

      come on, every other bugger's already got one....

    2. Re:Extra invite, anyone? by trash+eighty · · Score: 1

      i haven't had any invites to give out for weeks, could be its going to live soon... or maybe not.

    3. Re:Extra invite, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *eyes his lovely 1000MB inbox*
      Bwahahaha! Don't you SO regret making me a foe, now? :D
      See you in a while!

      Love,

      - Someone.

  73. PARENT IS TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SEE HIS HISTORY

  74. Re:GMAIL IS GAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should people pay for either colocation or a business grade line to their homes when GAYmail does a good enough job for free?

    Because it is idiotic to rely on an email service you don't have ANY control over. And storing all your stuff there (which may be gone any second if Google decides so) is even dumber.

    When will people learn that THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS FREE LUNCH?

  75. anything but rediculous by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Yeah...let me further your line of reasoning and say that there is no reason that we should have switched away from using base 1 for everything, since it's the first way, and every other approach is merely a redundant way to write it, and therefore part of the plot to lead to the eventual heat-death of the universe.

    Computers use powers of two for every kind of calculation. The most important reason of all to do the measurements this way is because it's easier. It wasn't random, wasn't folly, wasn't totally rediculous.

    The redefinition allows us to use the units in a calculable way. It also makes a kind of sense to redefine mega, giga, and tera in terms of base 2 because a byte is a base 2 unit. Why not just go all out when you're using them and make everything else base 2 as well? You may not that bits, which come out to a nice, round number in every number base, are measured in base 10. A terabit is 10^12 bits.

    It's too much to ask that a microcontroller that reports usage have half of it's hardware devoted to base conversion, especially when the result may come out to some terrible fraction. To use your statement, I find that just because people are using mega, giga, and tera with the original meanings just because they're entrenched is folly at best and is better regarded as arrogant.

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    1. Re:anything but rediculous by Detritus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Computers use powers of two for every kind of calculation.

      Except when they don't.

      I've seen base 3, 10, 40, 100, 256.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:anything but rediculous by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      This is smart, I like the "do everything in bits" idea. I do see (possibly) where kibi, mebi, gibi come from: kilobinary, megabinary, etc... But still, the old way is entrenched, the new way sounds reatarded and is hard to say, meebeebites? WTF? Terabit, Megabit, that's where it's at. That way, whatever base you want just perform division, lazy ass ;)

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    3. Re:anything but rediculous by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      Computers use powers of two for every kind of calculation.

      Except when they don't.

      I've seen base 3, 10, 40, 100, 256.

      I don't think the grandparents post is incorrect for modern computers. Unless they use something other then the standard 2-way transistor, then that is a valid statement.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
  76. something a bit more interesting by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

    What would be really interesting now would be to know what exactly people sent him in those 5meg attachments.

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  77. Old news by Kethinov · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good test? Old news. A friend of mine, Milo, did this two weeks ago. I even submitted a Slashdot article. But it got rejected. Why? Some guy in the Netherlands isn't as important as the all mighty Kevin Rose of the Screen Savers I guess. :-\

    --
    You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    1. Re:Old news by hattmoward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know what you mean; I never even liked The Screen Savers! For a while, about 350 TotalFark members were running a Music Ring, where everyone was required to use a GMail account. We moved about 500-600 MB of mail into 350 mailboxes each day. I never saw a hiccup speed-wise when downloading attachments, that is, whatever connection I was on would max out. We did run against some GMail-imposed limitations that are intended to control load: First, outgoing messages are limited to 100 recipients, beyond that point, they are silently removed. Second, GMail limits a single client to a handful (3 or 4) of simultaneous connections at a time. (For example, if you have 3 or 4 attachment downloads running, any new connections will block until another connection closes or the timeout is reached.) Third, and this is actually documented, but not well, GMail limits single messages to 10MB in size. What they don't explain, and what I had to explain repeatedly, is that you actually have a limit for attachments of 7.5MB, because of Base64 encoding for MIME.

      Oh well, this is Slashdot; what do you expect? =)

    2. Re:Old news by FTL · · Score: 2, Informative
      > Good test? Old news. A friend of mine, Milo, did this two weeks ago.

      Not old news. Your friend simply filled his Gmail account. That's no big deal. Your friend even said "nothing unexpected happened". What makes Kevin Rose's news interesting is that continued traffic on an account can lock out the owner. That's a significant bug in that one can launch a denial of service attack on a Gmail user.

      --
      Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    3. Re:Old news by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      What they don't explain, and what I had to explain repeatedly, is that you actually have a limit for attachments of 7.5MB, because of Base64 encoding for MIME.

      Why is this? I wasn't aware of it.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    4. Re:Old news by hattmoward · · Score: 1

      How Base64 Encoding Works - Here's a good document about Base64 encoding itself, and how it works in conjunction with MIME for use in email.

      It doesn't mention that MIME has a header field that specifies encoding (Content-Encoding) and that Base64 is one choice in a handful of possible encodings to use. Base64 is probably your best bet for getting an attachment to its destination today, even though it grows the data (byte-wise) by 33% for transport.

    5. Re:Old news by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      It doesn't mention that MIME has a header field that specifies encoding (Content-Encoding) and that Base64 is one choice in a handful of possible encodings to use. Base64 is probably your best bet for getting an attachment to its destination today, even though it grows the data (byte-wise) by 33% for transport.

      I've used base64 in coding a simple stmp client and I am fairly certain that I exceeded this limit in testing. What I am wondering is if this is a server level restriction. I'll look at the link later. Perhaps that will anser my question

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    6. Re:Old news by hattmoward · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's an administered restriction. Google configured GMail's MTAs it to limit messages to 10MB, which is effectively 7.5MB for a message with an attachment. (You can, OTOH, send someone a 10MB email message consisting only of text. I don't know if GMail checks to see if the attachment is 8-bit or not, so you may be able to attach a 10MB text file, or it could B64 it regardless) Base64 itself has no such limitation, it's simply a different way to express data, which is only limited by the hardware available and the technique used to encode/decode the data.

    7. Re:Old news by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      Milo stated that once he reached the limit, only small text messages would get through and anything large or w/an attachment would get rejected immediately.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
  78. would rather have gmail by spir0 · · Score: 0

    seeing as people are giving away gmail accounts, I could really use one.. please send invites to wouldratherhavegmail@hotmail.com

    --
    The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
  79. Re:I need a gmail account by AJYeary · · Score: 1

    If you haven't already fulfilled this promise, I'd appreciate a Gmail account as well. AJYeary@yahoo.com. And yes, I know Yahoo filters Gmail invites as spam... Which means I'll be digging through my Bulk Mail folder for the next couple days!

    ~aj~

  80. gmail account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I need a gmail acount, my addy is frostbite204@gmail.com

  81. Holy Shit by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 1, Funny

    If I ever met someone who said or wrote "gibibyte" and "mibibyte" I would surely be inclined towards kicking them in the face and crotch.

    That is some wholly ludicrous shit. Everyone knows it is thoroughly ridiculous. They sound like the squeaks of a retarded baby. ME BI BYTE! KI BI! GI BI!

    To know the heinous nature of these words you must look at who benefits from them. It is clear that by redefining "gigabyte" the only people who benefit are hard drive manufacturers. In the ensuing confusion they can stop delivering anything like what they advertise and just make up the capacities of their drives. Recently I purchased two "160 gigabyte" hard drives. One of them was about 156 gigabytes while the other turned out to be about 149 gigabytes. I trust both my BIOS and my OS before I trust hard drive marketing and they say I'm getting a bit of the shaft. This is called deception. Lies. Widely agreed upon as immoral and harmful behavior. That is what "kibibyte" is all about.

    Tim

    --
    Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    1. Re:Holy Shit by Xrikcus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Giving them a unit they can be honest with, you mean? Rather than using "kilobyte" to mean "1000 bytes" like HD manufacturers do now, just to confuse and con the public?

    2. Re:Holy Shit by trewornan · · Score: 1
      I trust both my BIOS and my OS before I trust hard drive marketing and they say I'm getting a bit of the shaft. This is called deception. Lies. Widely agreed upon as immoral and harmful behavior.

      Just like measuring the size of monitors diagonally . . . total bollocks.

    3. Re:Holy Shit by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you have read the book "1984." In it they were very much into redefining words to fit the lies of the government. This is like that except it is for some reason the standards body helping out hard drive manufacturers instead of the government helping out itself.

      When hard drive manufacturers are saying their hard drives are x gigabytes in size and this is not true, the response should not be to redefine the word "gigabyte" so that their claims are technically true, because the end result is still deception.

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    4. Re:Holy Shit by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      No, the big difference is that this way the whole world knows what gigabyte means. At the current time, they don't, because different people (read: HD manufacturers, and some network people) treat it in different ways. If you redefine it, you have to choose a way to do it, the better way (for consistency) happens to suit the HD manufacturers... that's fine, because at least everyone can predict now.

      It's only deception if you hide it from people.

  82. So, out of curiosity . . . by achurch · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The standard prefixes kibi, mebi, gibi, tebi, etc. mean the exact same thing when applied to ANY measure. That's the entire point of a standard, and the standard says 2^10, 2^20, 2^30, and 2^40, respectively.

    So exactly what measures, other than units of computer storage, are you intending to apply these prefixes to?

    If the answer is "none", then it's not a standard, it's a kludge.

  83. Kevin Rose by abricko · · Score: 1

    ...laporte junior? kevin rose needs to be stopped, he's following in the misinfo footsteps of his mentor mr Leo Laporte. I was so happy when when leo was canned but was sad to see they pulled a cheaper replacement (clone). G4-TECH TV needs to be turned back into a shop at home clone... it's dead to me now...

  84. Re:GMAIL IS GAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please pay up for your copy of Linux, thank you, that will be all. And if I catch you near those Free As In Beer OSS websites, you'll be in big big trouble, comprendo?

  85. SPAM anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *sniff* Smells like a spammer harvesting emails to me...

  86. Re:GMAIL IS GAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While you certainly pay a price for OSS (not having the same kind of support as with proprietary software etc.) that is something different.

    You certainly don't expect a company like Google to give stuff away for free just for the fun of it?

  87. 1024 instances of will smith.... by beakburke · · Score: 1

    would be mighty fresh, wouldn't it. :D

    --
    ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
  88. Stanwyk? Who? by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

    "Excuse me, and you are.."

    "It's me! Dr. Rosenrose."

    "Who?"

    "Dr. Rosenpenis."

    "I'm sorry, who did you say?"

    "It's me, Kevin Rose Load."

    --
    It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
  89. Would that were true by Kaseijin · · Score: 1
    No, the fact is that SI unit prefixes have slightly different values when describing computer storage, and you're just going to have to accept that.
    A recordable CD can hold 650 * 2^20 bytes; a single-layer recordable DVD, 4.7 * 10^9. Back when magnetic media were measured in megabytes, values of mega- included 2^20, 10^6, and (in the case of the '1.44 MB' floppy) 1,024,000; today they're uniformly sold by 10^9s but measured by common desktop environments in 2^30s. No, the fact is that the SI prefixes are consistently misused only when describing computer memory, and the 7% difference at the gigabyte level is significant.
  90. stress testing conversations by adpowers · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've done a little bit of my own stress testing. However, I've done it a little bit different. I wanted to see how Gmail handled huge conversations. I e-mailed my brother and we spammed each other back and forth in the same thread, seeing if we could influence the Ads. After a while we started adding more people to the conversation (our current test thread has nine people). We started out by hitting Reply All and saving the quotes from the previous e-mail. It became a huge list of >>> near the bottom and eventually Gmail clipped the messages. After a few hundred replies, opening the thread became slower and slower. When it reached 426 replies, it took me a week to finally get into it. With that I made one last reply and closed the thread. Hey, just out of curiosity, I opened the thread now and it loaded pretty easily. I wonder if they have optimized their behind the scenes engine to make it faster for large conversations. Maybe I'll continue the thread. Also, if you want to be part of the new test thread, just send an e-mail to adpowers@gmail.com.

    Anyway, here is my Gmail stress test.

    Also, you'll notice I have a few mailing lists on the side. I only read the Freenet one, but I subscribed to the Linux Kernel list and some others because I know them to be high traffic. Gmail is pretty impressive and they seem to be optimizing it even more.

  91. Re:GMAIL IS GAY by Garion+Maki · · Score: 0, Troll

    actualy... they aren't giving away stuff for free...
    see those adds on the right of your gmail?
    they create money for google, making a profit for google.
    and unless you find that your paying yust by looking at those adds, gmail is still free for you, even tho google is earning a profit from it.

    --
    All indicators show that the human race is selectively breeding itself for stupidity.
  92. kevin by JokkVahl · · Score: 1

    I guess "kev" is my hero now

  93. DDoS by losttoy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The guy ran the *test* without informing Gmail people and his *promotion* resulted in Gmail receiving 70-80K 5MB mails in 10-15 minutes. Isn't that tantamount to a DDoS? Shouldn't the guy be booked for something?

    PS - I RTFA

  94. Communigate Pro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I load tested cgp with 100Mb files. it worked great man...i'm just a dumb AC. I'm not related to them. i did this for a small company 100 peps

  95. *cough* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dullest experiment EVER.

  96. Google Filesystem Blocksize by gst · · Score: 1

    The Google Filesystem has a Blocksize of 64MB (see http://www.cs.rochester.edu/sosp2003/papers/p125-g hemawat.pdf for more information), so most likely the reason for the 1024MB of total size is, that the granularity of the quota system is 64MB too.

  97. You're kidding, right? by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

    Damn, and here I thought the speed limit on my commute was 61440 meters per hour. Drat! I guess I'll have to slow down to a paltry 60000.

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  98. What's so abhorrent about clarity? by Kaseijin · · Score: 3, Informative
    Computers use powers of two for every kind of calculation.
    Except when they don't. Binary is dominant, but not universal.
    The most important reason of all to do the measurements this way is because it's easier.
    Sure, as long as we're dealing with binary systems, sometimes binary multiples will be more convenient. They're even more convenient when they're unambiguous.
    It also makes a kind of sense to redefine mega, giga, and tera in terms of base 2 because a byte is a base 2 unit. Why not just go all out when you're using them and make everything else base 2 as well?
    We don't go all out. We use base 10 numbers in front of these "base 2" units. Given a computer with eight-bit bytes, 2^8 would fit the architecture better than 2^10; we use the latter number solely because of its proximity to 10^3. And what about those eight bits? 8 is 2^3, a power of two at least, but an odd one if you'll pardon the pun. Why not 2^2 or 2^4? For that matter, why bytes at all? Because we meatbags need to encode text, and English fits in seven bits plus one for parity. Moreover, even if we were using numbers like 3 and 10 for the computers' sake and not our own, it still would make no sense to confuse the meanings of existing words instead of adopting unambiguous terms.
    You may not that bits, which come out to a nice, round number in every number base, are measured in base 10.
    Except when they aren't. Memory capacity is consistently expressed in binary powers whether using bits or bytes. Most of the networking software I've seen defines a kilobit as 2^10 bits, and some service providers do it too. Expressions of bus speed may depend on the passengers.
    It's too much to ask that a microcontroller that reports usage have half of it's hardware devoted to base conversion, especially when the result may come out to some terrible fraction.
    Bytes are discrete, and an integer in base 2 is an integer in base 10. A report for human eyes usually has the latter, but none of this is relevant to whether you then divide the number by 1000 or 1024 or not at all. If it makes sense to measure something in groups of 2^10, do so, but call it what it is. More to the point, don't call it what it isn't.
    To use your statement, I find that just because people are using mega, giga, and tera with the original meanings just because they're entrenched is folly at best and is better regarded as arrogant.
    It has nothing to do with entrenchment; science and technology demand clarity and accuracy.
  99. What a waste by rubberband · · Score: 1

    I appreciate that gmail is in a test phase, but it sucks that this hack is wasting his account on a publicity stunt (don't for a second think it's more than that) when there are thousands of people begging for invites all over the world.

    like me: matthyw at canoemail dot ca

    Sorry. Lame begging aside, what does he think he's going to accomplish by this? It's basically an excuse to say something dirty over a public media stream.

  100. Consider the alternative. by Kaseijin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So exactly what measures, other than units of computer storage, are you intending to apply these prefixes to?

    If the answer is "none", then it's not a standard, it's a kludge.
    What do you call overloading the decimal prefixes with contradictory meanings and using them ambiguously?
    1. Re:Consider the alternative. by achurch · · Score: 1

      What do you call overloading the decimal prefixes with contradictory meanings and using them ambiguously?

      Also a kludge.

  101. Re:Video Clip? Host it on gmail! by argent · · Score: 1

    If enough people send each other copies of the "fill my gmail" video clip, will they fill gmail?

  102. Selfish ... by Hack'n'Slash · · Score: 1

    That selfish bastard:

    "Proceeded to login with other Gmail accounts to ensure this was not a site wide problem. All other accounts worked fine."

    He has multiple Gmail accounts, and I don't have a single one. Even more of a kick in the pants: The 3 variations of my e-mail name have already been taken on gmail.
  103. Re:I want an invitation... by cgill27 · · Score: 1

    Please send me an invitation as well. Thanks!

  104. fillmybox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fillmybox@gmail.com
    That sounds like a bad porn site.

  105. Does he know about GFS? by Bob[Bob] · · Score: 1

    I dunno... Kevin Rose's rambling explanation of GMail using a huge RAID array, and that business about copying your mail into "some type of RAM/solid state drive", and something about cron jobs sorting things out after a few days... I mean, does he actually know what he's talking about? (Being in the UK, I have never heard of him.)

    Surely, for starters, they're using their Google File System to do the storage?

    1. Re:Does he know about GFS? by ihaddsl · · Score: 1

      I mean, does he actually know what he's talking about?
      No

    2. Re:Does he know about GFS? by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

      GFS was designed for huge (think GBs and TBs here) files, to be accessed in a streamy manner. Emails are usually on the order of kilobytes. I doubt they'd use GFS for this - they'd probably design something more efficient. After all, who wants to transfer 64Mb over a lan just to get one email?

  106. Could use some readability standards by rfc1394 · · Score: 1

    What kind of a person designs a website to show gray text on a black background? Is it his intent to make it as difficult as possible to read what he has to write?

    --
    The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  107. I quit watching TSS by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 1

    Because Kevin Rose reminds me of those tech guys who solve stuff by rebooting first and then reloading the OS if that fails. I liked the show when it was Leo and Patrick. Mainly because these guys have been around and remember the old days. These new guys suck.

    --

    'Same speed C but faster'
  108. Why the FFF system rules by wfolta · · Score: 1

    Firkins, Furlongs, and Fortnights rule! And we thus eliminate the arbitrary seconds and use the more interesting microfortnights.

  109. Need a gmail invite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that the whoring has started, I'll join the party and ask for a gmail invite. Anyone got one? If so you can send it to bill99947 NOSPAM AT hotmail dot com remove spaces and nospam Thx

  110. Kilogram is absurd? Why? by dinodriver · · Score: 1

    " (for example, I've heard people expressing their weight in kilograms, which is obviously absurd)"

    Please explain to me since I'm not very good at recognizing obvious absurdities. And neither are many other people I guess, since it is usual to express one's weight in kilograms in many countries (Japan, for example). How are these people "misusing the unit"?

    1. Re:Kilogram is absurd? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kilograms are units denoting mass, not weight.

      Take me, for example. I weigh at present 130 pounds, or nine stone and change.

      I have a mass of, what, 59 kilograms? My conversion may be shaky, but let's run with it.

      I qualified my weight with, "at present" because it's subject to change under conditions where my mass would not be.

      So, if I were to suddenly find myself in the cold vacuum of space past the heliopause, with my arteries bursting and spewing boiling and freezing blood into the cosmos, I would weigh nothing.

      I would still, however, have a mass of 59 kilograms, less the blood.

    2. Re:Kilogram is absurd? Why? by Cody+Hatch · · Score: 1
      As the AC who replied to you already mentioned...

      Kilograms are a measure of mass. There's various ways of defining the concept of mass, but you might say that it's the ratio between the force applied to an object, and the acceleration that results. My dictionary calls it:
      A property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion.
      Which is fair enough. On the other hand, weight is actually a name for force. In particular, Force = Mass x Acceleration, and we call weight the force which is the product of acceleration due to gravity. An object with zero mass will have zero force at any acceleration (ignoring, for the moment, quantum physics and relatavistic effects), and an object under zero acceleration must have zero net force applied to it, regardless of its mass.

      On the surface of the Earth, you are being accelerated downwards at about 9.8 m/s^2, so if you mass 100kg, your weight is 980 newtons (which is the force required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 m/s^2, and is abreviated as N in the SI system). Your mass is 100kg, your weight is 980 N - saying you "weigh" 100kg is meaningless, although if you assume the person is accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, you can make a good guess as to what their weight actually is. :-)

      Another common misuse of the unit is the claim that 1kg = 2.2 pounds. Since pounds are a measure of force, and kilograms are a measure of mass, this conversion is only true on the surface of the Earth - it's incorrect for pretty much anywhere else. The actual correct conversion would be between kilograms and slugs (which is actually the US customary unit for mass, and is the mass which one pound of force would accelerate at 1 foot/s^2), and between newtons and pounds.

      For the curious:
      1kg = 0.06852 slugs.
      1 N = 0.2248 pounds.
      And on the surface of the Earth (or anywhere else accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, or 32 feet/s^2):
      1kg = 0.1020 N
      1 slug = 0.03125 pounds
      Of course, in the real world, everyone is on the surface of the earth, and people who use the metric system use kilograms (a measure of mass) for both mass and force. On the other hand, people who use the US customary system use pounds (a measure of force) for both force and mass, so maybe it evens out. :-) Nonetheless, unless you assume that the speaker is accelerating at some known acceleration, saying you weigh 100kg is a bit like saying you mass 3 seconds, or that your temperature is 12 meters - meaningless.

      (Note: I'm not entirerly confident of the metric to customary conversions, please double check if your using these numbers to build spacecraft.)
    3. Re:Kilogram is absurd? Why? by dinodriver · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explanations guys. I guess I'd counter by pointing out that it is common usage to express one's body weight in kilograms (watch the olympics next month and you'll see) and that such a common practice while apparently technically incorrect, shouldn't be considered "absurd".

    4. Re:Kilogram is absurd? Why? by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1
      {narrows eyes} You're not a metrologist, are you? {shakes his head} I work in that field and some of the things you have to deal with at that level... for one, you're right in that weight and mass become somewhat less related. Gravity is not a constant, as convenient as it is to consider it such. In fact, in any area where they're doing precision calibration of standards, they will have recorded what the value of gravity is in that location, usually affected mostly by elevation. ^_^ Then there's that classic question of which weighs more, a kilogram of lead or a kilogram of magnesium. The first one weighs more. Yes, they're the same mass, but at high levels of precision, the buoyancy of the air makes a difference.

      *wry grin* And yes, I'm getting off-topic here in a lot of ways. As for the difference in prefixes, I'm all for standardization. Honestly, how often have you seen computer manufacturers label a hard drive as being 100 GB, but when you look at the drive, you find out it's listed as 93 GB? Because standardization of the prefixes is still not, well, standard, they're technically not lying. In actuality... *grumble*

      --
      This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  111. You're just jealous by Atario · · Score: 1

    ...that he gets to bang Sarah Lane.

    (That said, you're right about him not really being a guru.)

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
  112. got my account now by spir0 · · Score: 1

    thanks to a very kind soul, I have a gmail account now, so no need to send me any more :)

    --
    The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
  113. Re:Goes to 102%.... -- alternate possible reasons. by rocca · · Score: 1

    I am one of the developers for a SMTP server for a free mail provider so I have a bit of experience with this. In our case you can exceed your quota slightly in a couple of ways:

    1) Sometimes a message comes in and the sending SMTP server didn't advertise the size of the message ahead of time, so it goes through the RCPT stage of sending a list of recipients for that message and you need to decide whether to accept or decline the message for each receiving user. In this case, because the length of the message is unknown until after the list is sent you don't know if it will cause the new message to exceed a particular users quota and therefore it is best to only reject delivery to people that have *already exceeded* their quota. This prevents you from having to accept the message and then queue up a bounce to send back to the sender. So for example someone with a 10MB quota and 8MB in their mailbox already, if they receive a 3MB attachment, could have 11MB of mail before the next message is rejected -- rather than accepting the message, seeing that it would exceed and having to ship it back to the sender.

    2) In a distributed environment it is more efficient to update the mailbox size in batches rather than real-time, so there may be a few seconds or minutes lag between the time a message is received and the time it is incremented in their profile. Therefore someone with 8MB of mail might receive five 1MB attachments within a few seconds and have them all accepted before their totals are updated to show them as exceeding their quota.