Slashdot Mirror

http://www.gridtoday.com/grid/354702.html
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3

WoW... 2 dead links: Proud of you, that one, lol... I can't reach them, so, how can you show me this "proof" of yours, vs. this (and your OLD stale data, that's older than mine, here):

More bullshit - the links work fine.

And, if you had bothered to read the articles, you would have known that the upgrade was a 3-year program - 2005 to 2007. Not "old news", but a continuing program; and that the machines in question are Nasdaq's trading platform, have a much greater capacity than the Microsoft system you go on and on about, (which is a reporting system, not a trading platform) etc.

But you're just trying to troll, which we all already know. Your misunderstanding of the term "transaction" vis. databases makes it obvious that, contrary to your claim of "15 years experience", you never worked in this field.

So keep on, we're not impressed, you're just another dickhead shilling for Microsoft (and no, they won't front you a free laptop for this - you've got to do better than this lame attempt). Like Microsoft products, your trolling is third-rate.

Don't like it that those evil "open-sores" people are smarter than you? Awww, poor baby ... NOT! Both linux and BSD eat Windows for lunch. Of course you have no way of knowing that, since you don't know the difference between a transaction and an order, or a reporting system and a trading system.

Here's a question even an AC can sink their teeth into - why do people continue to extoll the "benefits" of Windows when, in hindsight, it was obviously a wrong turn in the road as far as computer systems are concerned? Do they feel "embiggened" by being able to click on stuff and occasionally getting it right? Or is it the psychological block from not being willing to admit that you've made a wrong choice, and that the time invested is a write-off (in other words, do Windows users labour under the "sunk costs" fallacy)?

http://www.gridtoday.com/grid/354702.html
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 491491

WoW... 2 dead links: Proud of you, that one, lol... I can't reach them, so, how can you show me this "proof" of yours, vs. this (and your OLD stale data, that's older than mine, here):

I read the link you posted, FROM MARCH 21 2005, vs. the one I POSTED, from November 2005... lol! Mine's oh, what... 8 months more current than yours?

YOU'RE OUTTA DATE/STALE, buddy!

Here's more:

Hey, tomhudson (43916), some vintage quotes of yours:

"That is a total lie. Not for trades. Nasdeq has never used either Tandem computers or Windows boxes for trades. Ever. Those Tandem computers that were replaced with Windows boxes never handled trades." - by tomhudson (43916) on Monday August 06, @07:08PM (#20135985)

&

"The machines "disseminating the data" are not the same machines doing the trades. So yes, you ARE full of crap. Enjoy it." - by tomhudson (43916) on Monday August 06, @03:39PM (#20133501)

----

Ok, you asked for it, here it is (others here CAN READ, you know, I'll let them judge (how's that))?

Securities: NASDAQ Migrates to SQL Server 2005:

"The system supports NASDAQs Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS). Every trade that is processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through MDDS, and MDDS keeps the official daily record of all trades. To support MDDS, SQL Server 2005 handles approximately 5,000 transactions per second at market open."

http://www.windowsfs.com/eNews/tabid/112/articleTy pe/ArticleView/articleId/933/Securities-NASDAQ-Mig rates-to-SQL-Server-2005.aspx

Dig this, bro, & dig it good:

EVERY TRADE pal, & its data... every trade goes THRU Windows Server 2003 & SQLServer 2005... you b.s. artist/"F.U.D." spreader, that had the sheer NERVE to call me names, & a shill above all else!

Also?

Note this part of it, too: "MDDS keeps the official daily record of all trades.", lol...

(Again - PROVE otherwise, to all of us reading here - you tried, but with STALE data, outdated stuff below!)

Hmmm, I see now, why you have TROLL in your signature here: YOU CAN'T HANDLE TRUTH, even if proven from reliable/reputable sources!

Read on, McDuff (proof of it is earlier & BELOW, verbatim, from one of the architects (Ken Richmond) of the system, AND that ALL DATA for trades passes thru MDDS, & from reputable sources no less):

First of all: NOTICE THE DATE OF YOUR initial "PROOF" (it is less current than mine was, which disputes AND disproves yours):

LOL!

The quote I cite below, is From RIGHT here (& FAR MORE CURRENT THAN YOUR MARCH 21st 2005 dated data, as this is from NOVEMBER 2005):

http://www.computerworld.com/databasetopics/data/s oftware/story/0,10801,106050,00.html

"Nasdaq replaced aging Tandem mainframes used to disseminate market trade data with a SQL Server 2005 system that handles 5,000 transactions per second and 100,000 queries a day and can scale up to 8 million new rows of data per day, according to Ken Richmond, vice president of engineering for the stock exchange."

Now, take a peek @ this above again ESPECIALLY ITS DATE, vs. your "proof" again, mine @ Nov2005, vs. yours @ Mar2005 (stale/old), also, because it further disproves your reply in an attempt to debate the above (your saying every trade did not go thru MDDS etc. in essence?)? Now if you are dyslexic? That is excusable... otherwise it is NOT!

----

Your ideas

Again, learn to read. That system is for disseminating completed trades, not the actual trading system.

From your latest link:

The system supports NASDAQ's Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS).

YOUR OWN QUOTE:

Nasdaq replaced aging Tandem mainframes used to disseminate market trade data with a SQL Server 2005 system that handles 5,000 transactions per second and 100,000 queries a day

These are machines that are used for people who want to know trade history - not machines that handle trades. The "transactions" they refer to are queries about trades, not "transactions" for trades. A "transaction", if you actually worked with databases, is any exchange between the server and client, not a n "order" - a sale of stock.

Again .. your own words:

MDDS keeps the official daily record of all trades.

http://www.gridtoday.com/grid/354702.html
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 491491

The trading system has 4x the capacity, and actually executes the trades; the Windows system you're so proud of is only for disseminating info, not actual trading. Yes, it gets a copy of each trade, to pass it along to those who want the info, but its NOT the trading system; its too under-powered by a long shot.

yes, DMS (Defense Messaging System) is currently standardized on Exchange, and they want off.

No FOSS -- You mean like Red Hat's software running in the DoD's Public Key Infrastructure?

http://www.gridtoday.com/grid/1259692.html

August Schell is a provider of professional services to organizations involved in Defense and National Security with expertise in the areas of PKI, virtualization and directory server engineering. "With the release of Red Hat Certificate System 7.2, Red Hat is defining the standard for security. The solution is innovative in its ability to simplify deployment and management while managed users and connected systems grow," said Bill Schell, President of August Schell. August Schell supports Red Hat's Certificate System deployment at the US Department of Defense, where it provides strong value as a central component in the security of the national military infrastructure. The Department of Defense also turned to August Schell last year for enabling its smooth migration from Sun's Solaris operating system to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The Department of Defense's entire PKI now successfully runs on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Theoretical bandwidth is a chimera. All the cars on Los Angelos freeways at a given time, carrying boxes of tapes -- now that's some theoretical bandwidth. What matters is achieved write and read capacity -- I believe the record is 14.5 Gb/s sustained.

The question is are you paranoid enough?

http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?N ewsID=5466
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/27/142223 0
http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/toolkit/security/e mail/0,39027176,39168559,00.htm
http://www.gridtoday.com/03/0526/030526.html
http://distributedcomputing.info/news.html

This thing has a lot of people's names on it. If it flops someone has to take the blame.

"Grid computing takes advantage of "down time" when computers are not using their full processing power to provide quick answers to problems in fields such as genomics, engineering design and financial services."

NIST jumping on the Grid bandwagon without knowing
what the term means. It's not about spare cycles;
it's about doing reliable distributed computing
in a loosely connected internet world. Most
machines "on the Grid" are large, dedicated
parallel farms bought for the purpose.

Foster's most recent Grid definition is at:
http://www.gridtoday.com/02/0722/100136.html

AM

""The "Grid" portion of the TeraGrid reflects the idea of harnessing and using distributed computers, data storage systems, networks, and other resources as if they were a single massive system." (from the TeraGrid FAQ)

It looks like TeraGrid is latching onto a catchword in order to boost awareness of their system. What they are describing here is not Grid computing at all."

No, they are right and you are wrong.

Using spare cycles is one thing you can
do with Grid technology, but it is not the
essential quality of Grids. "Grid" was coined by
Ian Foster et al by analogy with electricity power
grids. You plug into the wall and "it just works."

Here is Ian's discussion of what is and is not
a Grid from a couple of years ago:

http://www.gridtoday.com/02/0722/100136.html

AM

Have you guys heard of Etherlinx?

Apparently, they have their own way of rolling out cheap broadband. Anyone have any idea on whether their super-sized WiFi works?

Yeah. There's actually quite a lot of research going into this currently. It's called the Grid (think "power grid", ubiquitous, simple to use), and I predict it will be the next big buzzword.

See Global Grid Forum, Grid Today and the Globus project for starters.

The problem of buying and selling computation power on some sort of broker basis is a quite interesting problem in itself. Exactly what are you selling? Hardly CPU hours, since the value of those depends on the hardware.

Oh boy, you can't even distinguish between FP and SIMD... what am I saying, you can't even distinguish between your head and your ass!

Hm... maybe there's a reason for that.

If you want to compare Altivec (Mac SIMD) code running on PPC with code running on x86, you should compare it to SSE2 code (x86 SIMD). A quick look at Lightwave benchmarks should make things pretty clear to you:

http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/

If you're going to compare generic FPU performance with SIMD performance, you might as well say Pentiums are faster than themselves (because P4 SSE2 is much faster than P4 FP). Duh!

And if SIMD is so relevant in the real world, howcome the Athlon XP (which does not support SSE2) is the most used CPU in intensive computation, such as climate simulations, genetic research, etc.? Why don't these guys use Macs, hm...?

Are they idiots too, like everyone except you?