--- In ib-support@yahoogroups.com, "Leyne, Sean (Ext. 225)"
<sleyne@a...> wrote:

> > Well, to be precise:
> > He only said that he *believes* the (current) theoretical limit is
> > 32 TB.
>
> Not that I want to start a bun fight,

bun fight ?
What's that ? My dictionary explains this as a "tea-party" ?
Anyway without knowing what it is, I guess that I am not interested in
it as well.

> but after using IB/FB for 8+
> years, and following the various user fourms for 7+ years, I think it
> can be said that when I said the theoretical limit is 32 TERABYTES!!!
> Trust me it is.

Sean, if you have been offended by my words, I feel very sorry. I
just wanted to point to the simple fact that you wrote "I believe"
not: "I know". In my non-native-speaker-ears, "I believe..." just
sounds _much_ weaker than "I know the theoretical limit".
In no way I ever intended to challenge your knowledge.

>
> (or at least, that 1 TERABYTE one way or the other isn't going to matter
> to the 99.999999% of users)

This is another matter.
It reminds me of those times when I started into this computer
business: The apple ii was plain common with the IBM PC just having
its debut. I sold thoses machines (not exactly IBM PCs but Sirius, to
be precise) telling each and every man that this PC has such a huge
address space no user ever would need to care about it [because at
those times when an apple ii had 16, 32 or a maximum of 64 KB of RAM,
it seemeed unthinkable that anyone could sensefully use 1 MB of RAM
(besides this, it simply was much too expensive to supply any PC with
1MB of RAM )]

> P.S. 32TB would require 224 of the latest 147GB SCSI drives (not
> mirrored or RAID, of course).

This is a perfectly valid argument.
But then, another point of view is that you would need about 10000
-ten_thousand- of those (at those times) *horribly expensive*
5MB-drives which were common "only a few" (in my sentimental memory)
years ago.