With 4 drives on Pentium 4 3 Ghz, RAID 5 takes around 5% to 10% of the CPU when I saturate the Gbit ethernet.
Independent controllers is a good choice - I chose a basic PCI-E 2 port SATA card with a SiI 3132 - 2 of them. Under Linux, drives are hot pluggable and software RAID suddenly becomes superior to hardware RAID.
Also, I would say use at least 4 drives if you want to use the server for anything more like a small webserver or something - saturating the drives instead of the gigabit will cause multiple access to really slow down. Having 4 drives ensures local array read performance - especially latency, is still excellent.
Ahh, the things I've hacked together with good old Perl - hacking Perl maybe unfashionable and considered unmaintainable by other - maybe even other Perl programmers.
But to a hacker who believes most generic code has been written, that only tailored code remains to be written, Perl will remain to glue and re-use other code with ease.
Replacing it is a fantasy by people who would like to re-invent the wheel with a different color-scheme annually.
Re-usable code ? modules are easy to write, easy to understand and object oriented is only more practical when writing GUI apps.
Grow your code, use other's code, write it in way to be re-usable, don't rely on someone elses syntax issues to take of it for you.
I just don't care if Perl is fashionable or not, I like it, it works for me and as a hacker not a programmer, I just don't care if its not documented, when I read Perl, I think in Perl.
The only reason I learned Python is to use others code who felt the need to switch.
... if you could call motherboard RAID hardware, then yes.
As far as I can tell, its the worst kind of RAID and it has given software RAID a bad name.
The motherboard doesn't have parity chips, its just a flag to Windows to handle the RAID5.
This one went bad and not only marked it as degraded, but windows would not boot and the only tool we could find to get access to the data was a DOS boot floppy with the RAID drivers installed - but then, it didn't have permission to read the files, and the USB tools for moving the data somewhere from a DOS boot disk caused the system to hang.
Know of any recovery CD/DVD for a Windows RAID 5 system when it won't boot anymore ?
It happened to me on a system I did not set up.
Linux has recovery CDs to the hilt - many with RAID XX support, so you can recover data even when your system won't boot. Under Linux, you can't use RAID5 for a boot device anyway, so it will boot. I thought this was also true of Windows, but this machine had it.
Note: Hardware RAID is dead, long live RAID!
Never use a motherboards SATA for RAID, buy a cheap SiI 3132 or SiI 3124 card.
I can understand your skepticism, I agree on many points.
Relativity does not try to explain the affects at the nanoscale because of the affect of the uncertainty principle. Basically, like I said before, causality is dependent on relative time, which is real, but at the nanoscale we get very close to the paradox of change being creation and destruction in 1 - being a paradox it has both truth and fallacy at the same time.
There exist logical relations in uncertainty that affect change without reference to time, simply because there is something rather than nothing. Time is the result of these changes resolving.
The 2 realms of uncertainty and certainty must have different math because of our wish to make both certain - if we try to resolve the 2 with 1 math we strike another paradox.
So, its easy to say relativity won't work at the nanoscale and possibly that quantum mechanics has difficulty with gravity. At least with relativity, we can use known paradoxes to show we are wasting time searching for resolution on the nanoscale issue.
Personally I am not looking for a quantum resolution for gravity either, I suspect its also a waste of time. On this one, I couldn't say either way, since I wouldn't know where to start.
I couldn't agree more when it comes to multi-verse concepts, predicting things we cannot test. Sounds like a research grant winner though!
I think that the anthropic principle is an important reminder that our theories do need to fit our observations - when we observe our existence, we can use this to eliminate physical theories that cannot lead up to it from what we know of the past.
Unfortunately, when faced with a valid paradox, a physicists opinion cannot alter it.
The stability of the universe, whatever shape it is , is utterly dependant on time being a relative concept.
If, for example the universe had absolute time in different spatial locations, causality itself would not be possible, since it is inherently impossible to know which which came first, the chicken or the egg - for any objects. Any event would occur at a time for all spatial locations, which means it cannot possibly cause another event to occur in another specific location, only all locations. its absurd.
That is a paradox and it not surprising that that the universe actually doesn't work this way.
paradox is the key, spot one, and you know something that is true and something that is false for any possible universe
Paradoxes can only physically occur without resolution, like in quantum mechanics - they can exist as a potential, just like in the mind. They affect the results of any observation, but inherently cannot be resolved themselves, that is part of their definition.
The key about introducing physicists to philosophy is that you can know some things which are true and some which are false for any possible universe - or to strengthen that a little by combining it with the anthropic principle, any *plausible* universe.
Why not test a theory for self-consistency before comparing it with reality - it could save time
The problem with paradoxes is simple. If you throw out any theory with paradoxes, you can start by dumping :
-> big bang theory
I agree on that one.
-> quantum mechanics
Lost me there, quantum mechanics beautifully captures the logic of timeless superposition of all possibilities in uncertainty. Paradoxes are both true and false here and existence is a question of resolution.
-> relativity
No, I don't agree here either. Here, time is the process by which existence itself changes - if existence were always true, nothing could change - change is both creation and destruction in 1, relativity is the realm of certainty in spacetime. It is the question of time's existence that causes light speed to be an observable constant regardless of both position and velocity. i.e. speed of light being the same because the question is the same.
Einstein was very careful to avoid paradoxes. If some still remain, then they must still be consistent with known paradoxes.
-> newtonian physics
There wouldn't be much left:
Indeed if scientist respected the laws of mathematics there would be no paradoxes in physics. Any theory containing even a single paradox would be thrown out the window immediately, like they are in mathematics. You could simply say time travel has the potential to create paradoxes... and is therefore impossible...
... yes, I would say the creation of such paradoxes gives you no certainty in the consistency of any observations, or even of the density function of matter. The rather high degree of consistency observed is the anthropic principle in action.
Even trickier point is that for something in Euclidean geometry to actually exist beyond a singular point, it's spatial knowledge of its own existence would require time. The actual stability of its existence creates a Euclidean mathematical nightmare that the actual universe probably doesn't give at toss about.
I'm a big fan of relative gravity too.
It's hard for me to challenge much of it not because of its mathematical equations, but because it deals with some inherant paradoxes of existance that string theory has failed to even acknowledge.
The paradoxes are what we should be comtemplating, not the mathematical structure of imagined dimensions.
Any question of existence implies an existing asker. That's the anthropic principle.
Time is no spatial dimension.
contemplate the paradoxes of time combined with this anthropic principle, it leads to a set of constraints that only general relativity deals with so far.
I have not encountered a string theory that can encompass such things as paradoxes at all. Mind you, I could spend the next 5 years just trying to read 1% of them.
If only most scientists actually stopped and checked even their most basic concepts for paradoxes, people wouldn't spend so long debating such obvious statements.
Time is another one. Follow the paradoxes in that one and having time travel ends up proving that such a universe universe would be incapable of remembering your relative position and velocity at all.
There was a thread about philisophy last week. A general lack of it is exactly why so much of science has gaping holes that people stare far too long into.
Remember when Redhat came with the new incompatible version of rpm inside one of its own rpms ?
One had to search for the tarball to upgrade rpm.
That pretty much killed it for life for me, I've been using Debian based systems ever since.
I think the idea was, back then redhat users frequently re-installed from scratch.
Python's current wave of popularity will make it handy to know when you want to use someone else's code, but everytime I encounter someone else's Python, it only runs on version X.
It's a pain to be a Python admin, its just simplicity to do so for Perl 5.
All this talk of Perl 5 and 6 - the lifespan of a Perl 5 script is probably amongst the best of all languages in terms of major distro's providing an interpreter that still runs the old code base.
Python is going through evolution, a little too much for my liking to be effective. That and many Python programmer's still can't decide how to treat a list of 1 element.
If you already think in Perl, Python is wasted effort.
I'd love to watch a video of you paying through the nose because that's the only "fair" way for you to pay - all the blood, its probably rated R.
I won't buy such a video at $30 AUD a shot though.
It frustrates me to read of people accusing others of insensitivity just for making jokes. The joke alone is just not enough information about the teller to know if they believe the joke as justified.
Its usually a good test, to see if one can keep both the tragedy and the comedy in balance. Anyone who thinks that jokes somehow discredit the tragedy are actually the ones who fail the test and can not really be trusted to remain in calm in tragic circumstances.
I personally don't want anyone hysterical and irrational anywhere near me when a quake hits my building - especially ones claiming a higher moral ground.
Lets face it, these tragedies are common and with the population increasing the way it is, we should understand the absolute numbers of casualties will increase over time.
The earth is not afraid to continue on without us, death is a fact of life - true grief comes from the loss of love not the loss of life. One can feel blessed just to eat good food each day and still know the irony of bad karma. If we mistreat the earth, there are consequences - if we mistreat a people over a long period of time, they will erupt.
Having said that, I am wondering how the Tibetans actually built that long tunnel to SiChuan to set their bomb off undetected!
There are many places in the world where it is inadvisable to drink tap water. I come from Australia, now living in Beijing. I would put Beijing's tap water on a par with Adelaide's.
Seems as though you are saying that Economy being all about money is why people can be shortsighted about our future living standards.
What if people who studied economics were actually taught that money is only relative ? - A large pile of money with no food available is totally useless.
So, I think its the *mis*perception that economy is about money that causes some people not to even think about future living standards.
I haven't eaten US beef, but I would say the experience I've had with meat in China is a very positive one - the turnover for meat is high. It's quality is actually pretty good on the whole - I wouldn't be surprised if its quality is above that of the US in general.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a paradox in it - those who know how to build a NAS would never buy a ready made 1.
That's also the reason ready made NAS's don't have the features required, because only the people who don't know what to look for, buy them.
With 4 drives on Pentium 4 3 Ghz, RAID 5 takes around 5% to 10% of the CPU when I saturate the Gbit ethernet.
Independent controllers is a good choice - I chose a basic PCI-E 2 port SATA card with a SiI 3132 - 2 of them. Under Linux, drives are hot pluggable and software RAID suddenly becomes superior to hardware RAID.
Also, I would say use at least 4 drives if you want to use the server for anything more like a small webserver or something - saturating the drives instead of the gigabit will cause multiple access to really slow down. Having 4 drives ensures local array read performance - especially latency, is still excellent.
Ahh, the things I've hacked together with good old Perl - hacking Perl maybe unfashionable and considered unmaintainable by other - maybe even other Perl programmers.
But to a hacker who believes most generic code has been written, that only tailored code remains to be written, Perl will remain to glue and re-use other code with ease.
Replacing it is a fantasy by people who would like to re-invent the wheel with a different color-scheme annually.
Re-usable code ? modules are easy to write, easy to understand and object oriented is only more practical when writing GUI apps.
Grow your code, use other's code, write it in way to be re-usable, don't rely on someone elses syntax issues to take of it for you.
I just don't care if Perl is fashionable or not, I like it, it works for me and as a hacker not a programmer, I just don't care if its not documented, when I read Perl, I think in Perl.
The only reason I learned Python is to use others code who felt the need to switch.
...yes and 2 completely separate transfer cables, 1 for all the ones, the other for all the zeros.
Gold plated, of course.
... if you could call motherboard RAID hardware, then yes.
As far as I can tell, its the worst kind of RAID and it has given software RAID a bad name.
The motherboard doesn't have parity chips, its just a flag to Windows to handle the RAID5.
This one went bad and not only marked it as degraded, but windows would not boot and the only tool we could find to get access to the data was a DOS boot floppy with the RAID drivers installed - but then, it didn't have permission to read the files, and the USB tools for moving the data somewhere from a DOS boot disk caused the system to hang.
Use a big fat journal, no need for a big fat wallet.
Know of any recovery CD/DVD for a Windows RAID 5 system when it won't boot anymore ? It happened to me on a system I did not set up.
Linux has recovery CDs to the hilt - many with RAID XX support, so you can recover data even when your system won't boot. Under Linux, you can't use RAID5 for a boot device anyway, so it will boot. I thought this was also true of Windows, but this machine had it.
Note: Hardware RAID is dead, long live RAID!
Never use a motherboards SATA for RAID, buy a cheap SiI 3132 or SiI 3124 card.
I can understand your skepticism, I agree on many points.
Relativity does not try to explain the affects at the nanoscale because of the affect of the uncertainty principle. Basically, like I said before, causality is dependent on relative time, which is real, but at the nanoscale we get very close to the paradox of change being creation and destruction in 1 - being a paradox it has both truth and fallacy at the same time.
There exist logical relations in uncertainty that affect change without reference to time, simply because there is something rather than nothing. Time is the result of these changes resolving. The 2 realms of uncertainty and certainty must have different math because of our wish to make both certain - if we try to resolve the 2 with 1 math we strike another paradox.
So, its easy to say relativity won't work at the nanoscale and possibly that quantum mechanics has difficulty with gravity. At least with relativity, we can use known paradoxes to show we are wasting time searching for resolution on the nanoscale issue.
Personally I am not looking for a quantum resolution for gravity either, I suspect its also a waste of time. On this one, I couldn't say either way, since I wouldn't know where to start.
I couldn't agree more when it comes to multi-verse concepts, predicting things we cannot test. Sounds like a research grant winner though!
I think that the anthropic principle is an important reminder that our theories do need to fit our observations - when we observe our existence, we can use this to eliminate physical theories that cannot lead up to it from what we know of the past.
Unfortunately, when faced with a valid paradox, a physicists opinion cannot alter it.
The stability of the universe, whatever shape it is , is utterly dependant on time being a relative concept.
If, for example the universe had absolute time in different spatial locations, causality itself would not be possible, since it is inherently impossible to know which which came first, the chicken or the egg - for any objects. Any event would occur at a time for all spatial locations, which means it cannot possibly cause another event to occur in another specific location, only all locations. its absurd.
That is a paradox and it not surprising that that the universe actually doesn't work this way.
paradox is the key, spot one, and you know something that is true and something that is false for any possible universe
Paradoxes can only physically occur without resolution, like in quantum mechanics - they can exist as a potential, just like in the mind. They affect the results of any observation, but inherently cannot be resolved themselves, that is part of their definition.
The key about introducing physicists to philosophy is that you can know some things which are true and some which are false for any possible universe - or to strengthen that a little by combining it with the anthropic principle, any *plausible* universe.
Why not test a theory for self-consistency before comparing it with reality - it could save time
The problem with paradoxes is simple. If you throw out any theory with paradoxes, you can start by dumping : -> big bang theory
I agree on that one.
-> quantum mechanics
Lost me there, quantum mechanics beautifully captures the logic of timeless superposition of all possibilities in uncertainty. Paradoxes are both true and false here and existence is a question of resolution.
-> relativity
No, I don't agree here either. Here, time is the process by which existence itself changes - if existence were always true, nothing could change - change is both creation and destruction in 1, relativity is the realm of certainty in spacetime. It is the question of time's existence that causes light speed to be an observable constant regardless of both position and velocity. i.e. speed of light being the same because the question is the same.
Einstein was very careful to avoid paradoxes. If some still remain, then they must still be consistent with known paradoxes.
-> newtonian physics
There wouldn't be much left :
Indeed if scientist respected the laws of mathematics there would be no paradoxes in physics. Any theory containing even a single paradox would be thrown out the window immediately, like they are in mathematics. You could simply say time travel has the potential to create paradoxes ... and is therefore impossible ...
... yes, I would say the creation of such paradoxes gives you no certainty in the consistency of any observations, or even of the density function of matter. The rather high degree of consistency observed is the anthropic principle in action.
Even trickier point is that for something in Euclidean geometry to actually exist beyond a singular point, it's spatial knowledge of its own existence would require time. The actual stability of its existence creates a Euclidean mathematical nightmare that the actual universe probably doesn't give at toss about.
I'm a big fan of relative gravity too. It's hard for me to challenge much of it not because of its mathematical equations, but because it deals with some inherant paradoxes of existance that string theory has failed to even acknowledge. The paradoxes are what we should be comtemplating, not the mathematical structure of imagined dimensions.
Any question of existence implies an existing asker. That's the anthropic principle.
Time is no spatial dimension.
contemplate the paradoxes of time combined with this anthropic principle, it leads to a set of constraints that only general relativity deals with so far.
I have not encountered a string theory that can encompass such things as paradoxes at all. Mind you, I could spend the next 5 years just trying to read 1% of them.
... said the universe.
If only most scientists actually stopped and checked even their most basic concepts for paradoxes, people wouldn't spend so long debating such obvious statements.
Time is another one. Follow the paradoxes in that one and having time travel ends up proving that such a universe universe would be incapable of remembering your relative position and velocity at all.
There was a thread about philisophy last week. A general lack of it is exactly why so much of science has gaping holes that people stare far too long into.
Bullshit because ?
7-zip offers better ratios for the CPU endowed ?
Remember when Redhat came with the new incompatible version of rpm inside one of its own rpms ? One had to search for the tarball to upgrade rpm. That pretty much killed it for life for me, I've been using Debian based systems ever since. I think the idea was, back then redhat users frequently re-installed from scratch.
Python's current wave of popularity will make it handy to know when you want to use someone else's code, but everytime I encounter someone else's Python, it only runs on version X.
It's a pain to be a Python admin, its just simplicity to do so for Perl 5.
All this talk of Perl 5 and 6 - the lifespan of a Perl 5 script is probably amongst the best of all languages in terms of major distro's providing an interpreter that still runs the old code base.
Python is going through evolution, a little too much for my liking to be effective. That and many Python programmer's still can't decide how to treat a list of 1 element.
If you already think in Perl, Python is wasted effort.
I'd love to watch a video of you paying through the nose because that's the only "fair" way for you to pay - all the blood, its probably rated R. I won't buy such a video at $30 AUD a shot though.
www.mo-call.com
It frustrates me to read of people accusing others of insensitivity just for making jokes. The joke alone is just not enough information about the teller to know if they believe the joke as justified.
Its usually a good test, to see if one can keep both the tragedy and the comedy in balance. Anyone who thinks that jokes somehow discredit the tragedy are actually the ones who fail the test and can not really be trusted to remain in calm in tragic circumstances.
I personally don't want anyone hysterical and irrational anywhere near me when a quake hits my building - especially ones claiming a higher moral ground.
Lets face it, these tragedies are common and with the population increasing the way it is, we should understand the absolute numbers of casualties will increase over time.
The earth is not afraid to continue on without us, death is a fact of life - true grief comes from the loss of love not the loss of life. One can feel blessed just to eat good food each day and still know the irony of bad karma. If we mistreat the earth, there are consequences - if we mistreat a people over a long period of time, they will erupt.
Having said that, I am wondering how the Tibetans actually built that long tunnel to SiChuan to set their bomb off undetected!
I don't drink either of them.
What if people who studied economics were actually taught that money is only relative ? - A large pile of money with no food available is totally useless.
So, I think its the *mis*perception that economy is about money that causes some people not to even think about future living standards.
You can go now, I think your tank is getting cold.
Fish maybe a little riskier.
I don't eat McDonalds.
I'm not sure you should have that 7th. coffee...