That probably wouldnt work: When you pay for a 20mbps or whatever cable, dsl, satellite, whatever connection, you are generally paying for last-mile bandwidth. Unless you have a contract saying otherwise, theyre not promising you upstream bandwidth, including if their own core routers are overloaded.
Check your bandwidth to the first hop (if you can figure out how to do that)-- if its what they promised, then theyre holding up their end of the bargain. If thats not acceptable, find a less overprovisioned ISP.
No they do not, they consume substantial space in System Volume Information. They also may not always be enabled.
They are most useful on network shares, where a user may end up deleting a file. You can allow them to restore their own file without having to mount recovery media.
Ext2 is a non-journaling filesystem. If you want to go back in time and experience the joys of that on a MS system, you can go FAT32. Enjoy your disk corruption the first time you have a non-safe disk shutdown.
This "logging" you speak of is a feature of basically every modern filesystem used by basically any OS you might stick on a computer. HFS+, ext3+, btrfs, NTFS, all of them journal, and hence are slightly slower and slightly more active than non-journaling filesystems.
But most people with a clue recognize that those slight disadvantages are more than made up for by having a FS that remains consistent even after an unclean shutdown from ie a power outage.
As for the amount of activity you talk about, you are grossly overstating it. Open up resource monitor and you can watch how active your drive is. I promise you, except for the occasional recovery checkpoint (daily or less frequent), the OS is generally not to blame for any excess IO activity you see.
Because there is basically no point to it. The point of indexing is that rotational media has substantial access time penalties for fetching various info from random locations on the drive. By indexing it, you place all that metadata in one place so you can get a sequential read.
But with an SSD, there is not a substantial difference between random and sequential reads, and no significant penalty, so the indexing is not terribly useful. Additionally, indexing means more writes as well as increased background reads, which not only impacts performance (for little gain) but also wears out the drive.
Ditto for defragmenting; in fact defragging and indexing attack the same core problem, but from different angles, which is why neither is necessary on an SSD.
Open up task manager, go to performance, click on resource monitor. Use this to track down what is running on your system that generates so much disk activity. On my machine, the disk housing the C partition is at this moment at 0.00% activity, and has averaged about that for quite some time. Average IO for C: over the past few seconds was around 800 bytes/sec.
If what you posted is accurate for your system, you need to get it fixed.
Not that its a good idea to go without a backup....
But windows has since at least XP had a concept of "shadow copies", whereby you can view the state of the drive at various checkpoints, and recover data. Right click your C: volume, properties, shadow copies-- click one of the checkpoints and click to view the data. You can restore individual files quite quickly doing this.
Unless Im mistaken, there is no "primary" in RAID 1, nor does one drive "mirror to the other". Data writes sent to the controller are mirrored to both drives simultaneously. If for some reason on-disk data gets corrupted, that will not be "mirrored over" to the other in any scenario I can think of. If you got a bad sector on one disk for example, any errors induced by it would not appear on the second drive (how the array would behave in that scenario I dont know, but it likely depends on the raid controller).
Are you really buying into these marketing names? Are you really implying that Linux and OSX dont have something similar to a journaling filesystem?
We have no details on what this means, whether there is a background filesystem check going on at all times, whether it might increase wear and tear on the drive, or what; its a little early to start calling this a great development.
I'd agree with that, and obviously we deal with different cases.
As for the phones, generally (at least with cisco phones) you get a switch with as many ports as you have workstations, wire it with PoE, and set up VLANs. The cisco phone has 2 ethernet jacks, one for receiving the PoE connection and one for passing bandwidth off to the workstation. It tags phone traffic on one VLAN, and workstation traffic on another (it has a built in switch).
Hence my comment about scale-- you start getting to a large organization with cisco phones, you're going to need as many PoE ports as you have workstation / phone cubicles, while biometrics, WAPs, security devices, etc may only take up a fraction of that many PoE ports.
If you want to be perpetually misunderstood by sticking to a technically correct-- and also woefully archaic by now-- definition, thats fine. Language changes, and while sometimes regrettable, you arent going to communicate more clearly by insisting that DSL isnt broadband.
Particularly when technically it COULD be considered broadband. Consider:
The standards group CCITT defined "broadband service" in 1988 as requiring transmission channels capable of supporting bit rates greater than the primary rate which ranged from about 1.5 to 2 Mbit/s.
Dunno, Im pretty sure DSL meets that standard, at least under ideal circumstances.
PoE is (in my experience) basically only used for VOIP phones, at least on the scale that youd deal with on a decent sized switch. Anything else could be dealt with pretty easily through an injector.
but note that this money was given to them BY WASHINGTON as part of the stimulus package.
Ah, and one of the conditions of that money was that WV forfeits all of its local sovereignty over internal affairs? They must have been really desperate.
That depends. If I give you $5 with the understanding you will buy a beverage, but am upset when I find out you bought beer, generally you can tell me to get bent.
There is no indication given that accepting the money made WV beholden to the fed for approval for its purchases, which is why I made the statement I did-- that the fed has no say once the money has been handed over. Its between WVa and its taxpayers now.
I know we like to pretend those last two Bill of Rights amendments arent there, but they ARE, I promise.
Clearly, you havent seen the packets that come out of these routers. Theyre so crisp, so clean, the ones so sharp, the zeros so full bodied and round....
I used to be a skeptic, but one day I broke down and decided to try the Cisco experience. I hooked my comcast modem's ethernet port up to a Cisco 3900, and that to a Catalyst 6513, and now I never have to experience low quality on youtube simply because someone only uploaded at 320p. Everything is so much cleaner, the sounds more audible, the content more enjoyable, even the slashdot comments have become wittier.
For $22,000 they could have bought 44,000 WRT54gs with DD-WRT on them, flashed them all with the same firmware/config, and if anything went wrong just threw the malfunctioning one away and popped in one of the 39,999 spares.
Theres a point at which "reliable" is no longer enough to justify the pricetag, especially when dealing with a 4-user scenario. And its not like there arent oodles of Cisco products for way less money that can handle T1 and come with the "legendary" cisco name, for instance a 1800 router, or if youre feeling particularly spend happy a 2900.
Slashdot Mirror
When the President wants to "protest" a bill, he does something known, in laymans terms, as "Veto".
Its one of the minor powers that comes from being president.
That probably wouldnt work: When you pay for a 20mbps or whatever cable, dsl, satellite, whatever connection, you are generally paying for last-mile bandwidth. Unless you have a contract saying otherwise, theyre not promising you upstream bandwidth, including if their own core routers are overloaded.
Check your bandwidth to the first hop (if you can figure out how to do that)-- if its what they promised, then theyre holding up their end of the bargain. If thats not acceptable, find a less overprovisioned ISP.
Rain....cesium?
I would pay to see that. Best fireworks show ever.
No they do not, they consume substantial space in System Volume Information. They also may not always be enabled.
They are most useful on network shares, where a user may end up deleting a file. You can allow them to restore their own file without having to mount recovery media.
Ext2 is a non-journaling filesystem. If you want to go back in time and experience the joys of that on a MS system, you can go FAT32. Enjoy your disk corruption the first time you have a non-safe disk shutdown.
Kind of irrelevant, since never in 20 years has it been a microsoft product.
Also, why arent you using Putty yet?
Only Vista and above do that. XP did not allow you to schedule a defrag, IIRC.
This "logging" you speak of is a feature of basically every modern filesystem used by basically any OS you might stick on a computer. HFS+, ext3+, btrfs, NTFS, all of them journal, and hence are slightly slower and slightly more active than non-journaling filesystems.
But most people with a clue recognize that those slight disadvantages are more than made up for by having a FS that remains consistent even after an unclean shutdown from ie a power outage.
As for the amount of activity you talk about, you are grossly overstating it. Open up resource monitor and you can watch how active your drive is. I promise you, except for the occasional recovery checkpoint (daily or less frequent), the OS is generally not to blame for any excess IO activity you see.
Because there is basically no point to it. The point of indexing is that rotational media has substantial access time penalties for fetching various info from random locations on the drive. By indexing it, you place all that metadata in one place so you can get a sequential read.
But with an SSD, there is not a substantial difference between random and sequential reads, and no significant penalty, so the indexing is not terribly useful. Additionally, indexing means more writes as well as increased background reads, which not only impacts performance (for little gain) but also wears out the drive.
Ditto for defragmenting; in fact defragging and indexing attack the same core problem, but from different angles, which is why neither is necessary on an SSD.
Open up task manager, go to performance, click on resource monitor. Use this to track down what is running on your system that generates so much disk activity. On my machine, the disk housing the C partition is at this moment at 0.00% activity, and has averaged about that for quite some time. Average IO for C: over the past few seconds was around 800 bytes/sec.
If what you posted is accurate for your system, you need to get it fixed.
What happens if something gets deleted?
Not that its a good idea to go without a backup....
But windows has since at least XP had a concept of "shadow copies", whereby you can view the state of the drive at various checkpoints, and recover data. Right click your C: volume, properties, shadow copies-- click one of the checkpoints and click to view the data. You can restore individual files quite quickly doing this.
Unless Im mistaken, there is no "primary" in RAID 1, nor does one drive "mirror to the other". Data writes sent to the controller are mirrored to both drives simultaneously. If for some reason on-disk data gets corrupted, that will not be "mirrored over" to the other in any scenario I can think of. If you got a bad sector on one disk for example, any errors induced by it would not appear on the second drive (how the array would behave in that scenario I dont know, but it likely depends on the raid controller).
Are you really buying into these marketing names? Are you really implying that Linux and OSX dont have something similar to a journaling filesystem?
We have no details on what this means, whether there is a background filesystem check going on at all times, whether it might increase wear and tear on the drive, or what; its a little early to start calling this a great development.
I'd agree with that, and obviously we deal with different cases.
As for the phones, generally (at least with cisco phones) you get a switch with as many ports as you have workstations, wire it with PoE, and set up VLANs. The cisco phone has 2 ethernet jacks, one for receiving the PoE connection and one for passing bandwidth off to the workstation. It tags phone traffic on one VLAN, and workstation traffic on another (it has a built in switch).
Hence my comment about scale-- you start getting to a large organization with cisco phones, you're going to need as many PoE ports as you have workstation / phone cubicles, while biometrics, WAPs, security devices, etc may only take up a fraction of that many PoE ports.
If you want to be perpetually misunderstood by sticking to a technically correct-- and also woefully archaic by now-- definition, thats fine. Language changes, and while sometimes regrettable, you arent going to communicate more clearly by insisting that DSL isnt broadband.
Particularly when technically it COULD be considered broadband. Consider:
The standards group CCITT defined "broadband service" in 1988 as requiring transmission channels capable of supporting bit rates greater than the primary rate which ranged from about 1.5 to 2 Mbit/s.
Dunno, Im pretty sure DSL meets that standard, at least under ideal circumstances.
PoE is (in my experience) basically only used for VOIP phones, at least on the scale that youd deal with on a decent sized switch. Anything else could be dealt with pretty easily through an injector.
My math teacher was verizon :( I never learned the difference between cents and dollars, apparently.
But the Cisco 1800 i mentioned at the bottom of my (rather short) post could.
but note that this money was given to them BY WASHINGTON as part of the stimulus package.
Ah, and one of the conditions of that money was that WV forfeits all of its local sovereignty over internal affairs? They must have been really desperate.
That depends. If I give you $5 with the understanding you will buy a beverage, but am upset when I find out you bought beer, generally you can tell me to get bent.
There is no indication given that accepting the money made WV beholden to the fed for approval for its purchases, which is why I made the statement I did-- that the fed has no say once the money has been handed over. Its between WVa and its taxpayers now.
I know we like to pretend those last two Bill of Rights amendments arent there, but they ARE, I promise.
But ironically (?) I live in washington.
Clearly, you havent seen the packets that come out of these routers. Theyre so crisp, so clean, the ones so sharp, the zeros so full bodied and round....
I used to be a skeptic, but one day I broke down and decided to try the Cisco experience. I hooked my comcast modem's ethernet port up to a Cisco 3900, and that to a Catalyst 6513, and now I never have to experience low quality on youtube simply because someone only uploaded at 320p. Everything is so much cleaner, the sounds more audible, the content more enjoyable, even the slashdot comments have become wittier.
Give it a try, you will be impressed.
Washington should keep its mouth shut, since this is an in-state affair.
People seem to sadly forget the 10th amendment and that there are matters that the fed has no say in.
Absolutely they have cheaper routers for SMBs, like the 1800. Theyre about $1000.
For $22,000 they could have bought 44,000 WRT54gs with DD-WRT on them, flashed them all with the same firmware /config, and if anything went wrong just threw the malfunctioning one away and popped in one of the 39,999 spares.
Theres a point at which "reliable" is no longer enough to justify the pricetag, especially when dealing with a 4-user scenario. And its not like there arent oodles of Cisco products for way less money that can handle T1 and come with the "legendary" cisco name, for instance a 1800 router, or if youre feeling particularly spend happy a 2900.