I don't buy that at all. The efficiency of a wireless adapter is something less than 8%. If they're getting more than four inches range on 0.3W consumption outputting 60GHz I will be VERY surprised. It's more likely that they're *outputting* 0.3W (consuming over 5W per adapter), for an effective range of still probably less than 30-40 feet. This puts their power claims out by an order of magnitude and confirms what I've said all along: that going wired to wireless saves nothing but copper: practically speaking you're using at least the same amount of power, if not more; data security and packet loss are going to be two HUGE problems.
I have a very small home data cluster: two servers, one switch. I can hit kill saturation (causing the NIC to overheat) very easily running just ONE cable into each box. Problem solved, very easily, with TWO NICs per machine, two cables to the switch per machine, two IPs per machine. Ingoing data goes through one NIC, outgoing with t'other, cards stay relatively cool and nothing falls over. I'm sure those who have experience with larger data setups have seen similar problems and know therefore that doubling up on your interconnects is a BLOODY GOOD IDEA!
Because I've metered it? And yes I am perfectly well aware of the peak load on systems when you spin up the drives, which is why there are TWO power bricks in each server. The specifications on each are identical. The peak load on the kW bricks on spinup is 860W, steady and stable(ish) at 412W. The system bricks peak at 383W and stabilise at 241W (saturated), 191W (idle).
that's the thing - it doesn't. It's *unmanaged*. It's a D-Link DES-1024R+. Just a dumb switch. It doesn't even do DHCP. As to saturation, it's a nonblocking wire-speed architecture around 4.8Gbps via 24+1 autosensing ports (the +1 is a bay for 100MBit optical which is in another switch (that one a D-Link 16+2 with two optical bays but I can't remember the model number). Oh yeah, and it's noisy. I think the fan bearing's gone.
not even close. Server NICs are generally integrated, wireless requires a dongle or card. That's extra power for each server. Even if you cut your switch power requirement by 75% there's still the problem of the extra power required by the interface cards, which at the very least will cancel out any power savings (which will be negligible anyway)
I have a pair of 4U servers, each containing a 1000W PSU (for hard drives and fans) and a 450W (for the mainboard and everything else). That's shy of 3kW on servers which wouldn't fill a rack a quarter the way. The switch (24-port unmanaged) consumes 40W. That's about 1% of the total power requirement of the entire system. If I switched out for say a Linksys E3000 (7W) and the associated wireless interface cards (I'd have to go with USB since all my expansion slots are occupied with SATA controllers, so call it 5W a pop), I would save a staggering 23W (nowhere even close to 90% of the total power requirement of the system) and all of nine feet of copper, on top of creating a data security nightmare.
the catch was actually relatively gentle considering the plane would have been travelling at a couple hundred mph. Something to do with the lift of the balloon and friction on the rope...
there are two barycentres in the system, the planet orbiting both in a Lorentzian orbit (a semi-chaotic figure-8). If the stars were close enough together the planet would be orbiting a barycentre common to them all. Would possibly even have a semi-stable climatic cycle. As it is, it's likely that the planet has random seasonal conditions ranging from hot plasma to nitrogen snow.
I didn't think they'd want to complicate such a simple but effective safety system by adding maps which are out of date as soon, if not before, they are loaded. GPWS already utilises inputs from altitude RADAR, barometric altitude, flap and gear sensors, IAS, ILS beacons and outer markers (and a couple other things I can't remember off the top of my head).
I didn't think of that. Of course, you'd be right - GPS isn't a replacement for ILS, it's an augmentation if anything. ILS would still be the primary signal base for instrument landing, since it uses a terminal narrowband beacon which is a: static and b: situated at the end of the runway and pointing directly outward into the glide slope. GPS would be used in situations where vision is obscured, the surrounding terrain is less than ideal (big mountains in the way for instance, or open ocean either end and to the sides of the tarmac - such as Kansai in Japan which is an amazing piece of engineering and which does in fact put up with some of the worst weather on the planet - ferocious crosswinds and downpours like you wouldn't believe, yet it just carries on functioning with nary a break) and you need a little extra help to avoid touching down on the wrong bit of terrain. Accurate GPS will tell you if you're over water, an aviator unit tells you your altitude as well I believe, in AMSL and ATL (I have seen them in sailplane cockpits), all ILS is really, when you boil it down, is an autopilot landing system based on a beacon.
It *is* a FOAD to the associatives, he's - rightly - told them that they have NO RIGHT to bring suit over copyright claims. If that gets through appeal and is upheld, then it will set precedent (yet again? See ABKO Music Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 944 F.2d 971, 980 (2d Cir. 1991) for previous mention, also several other citations contained in the decision FTA) which could (maybe?) spell the end of **AA "Jon Doe" suits. We live in hope.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure the Olympics was streamed...
way to squeeze Joe Consumer, motherfuckers!
now in English, rather than Salesman?
I don't buy that at all. The efficiency of a wireless adapter is something less than 8%. If they're getting more than four inches range on 0.3W consumption outputting 60GHz I will be VERY surprised. It's more likely that they're *outputting* 0.3W (consuming over 5W per adapter), for an effective range of still probably less than 30-40 feet. This puts their power claims out by an order of magnitude and confirms what I've said all along: that going wired to wireless saves nothing but copper: practically speaking you're using at least the same amount of power, if not more; data security and packet loss are going to be two HUGE problems.
We need YOU for experimental pile surgery!
Would you like to know more?
I have a very small home data cluster: two servers, one switch. I can hit kill saturation (causing the NIC to overheat) very easily running just ONE cable into each box. Problem solved, very easily, with TWO NICs per machine, two cables to the switch per machine, two IPs per machine. Ingoing data goes through one NIC, outgoing with t'other, cards stay relatively cool and nothing falls over. I'm sure those who have experience with larger data setups have seen similar problems and know therefore that doubling up on your interconnects is a BLOODY GOOD IDEA!
we're talking going wireless here, low power spec isn't an option - most cards I've seen consume 5-8W for a useful emitted output of probably 300mW.
Because I've metered it? And yes I am perfectly well aware of the peak load on systems when you spin up the drives, which is why there are TWO power bricks in each server. The specifications on each are identical. The peak load on the kW bricks on spinup is 860W, steady and stable(ish) at 412W. The system bricks peak at 383W and stabilise at 241W (saturated), 191W (idle).
but your Android phone's not gonna burn the house down. Unless you've got a Sony battery in it and you're using it while charging.
It's worse than that; the civic leaders of a market town in South Yorkshire have squatted goole.com.
Oh, yeah, and they can't spell for shit.
that's the thing - it doesn't. It's *unmanaged*. It's a D-Link DES-1024R+. Just a dumb switch. It doesn't even do DHCP. As to saturation, it's a nonblocking wire-speed architecture around 4.8Gbps via 24+1 autosensing ports (the +1 is a bay for 100MBit optical which is in another switch (that one a D-Link 16+2 with two optical bays but I can't remember the model number). Oh yeah, and it's noisy. I think the fan bearing's gone.
not even close. Server NICs are generally integrated, wireless requires a dongle or card. That's extra power for each server. Even if you cut your switch power requirement by 75% there's still the problem of the extra power required by the interface cards, which at the very least will cancel out any power savings (which will be negligible anyway)
Yeah, I had a bit of trouble with that as well.
Here's why.
I have a pair of 4U servers, each containing a 1000W PSU (for hard drives and fans) and a 450W (for the mainboard and everything else). That's shy of 3kW on servers which wouldn't fill a rack a quarter the way. The switch (24-port unmanaged) consumes 40W. That's about 1% of the total power requirement of the entire system. If I switched out for say a Linksys E3000 (7W) and the associated wireless interface cards (I'd have to go with USB since all my expansion slots are occupied with SATA controllers, so call it 5W a pop), I would save a staggering 23W (nowhere even close to 90% of the total power requirement of the system) and all of nine feet of copper, on top of creating a data security nightmare.
the catch was actually relatively gentle considering the plane would have been travelling at a couple hundred mph. Something to do with the lift of the balloon and friction on the rope...
there are two barycentres in the system, the planet orbiting both in a Lorentzian orbit (a semi-chaotic figure-8). If the stars were close enough together the planet would be orbiting a barycentre common to them all. Would possibly even have a semi-stable climatic cycle. As it is, it's likely that the planet has random seasonal conditions ranging from hot plasma to nitrogen snow.
and some fucked-up predators flying around when the place goes dark every 22 years...
Bloody hell.
if I were responding to GGPP I would have responded directly to it rather than one of its descendant posts. :)
actually, it was July 15-21 1975 which marked the successful docking of Apollo and Soyuz. So 5 years :)
...your chances of becoming an astronaut are down from 1 in 13 million to 1 in 1832.
I'll take some of that action.
I didn't think they'd want to complicate such a simple but effective safety system by adding maps which are out of date as soon, if not before, they are loaded. GPWS already utilises inputs from altitude RADAR, barometric altitude, flap and gear sensors, IAS, ILS beacons and outer markers (and a couple other things I can't remember off the top of my head).
I didn't think of that. Of course, you'd be right - GPS isn't a replacement for ILS, it's an augmentation if anything. ILS would still be the primary signal base for instrument landing, since it uses a terminal narrowband beacon which is a: static and b: situated at the end of the runway and pointing directly outward into the glide slope. GPS would be used in situations where vision is obscured, the surrounding terrain is less than ideal (big mountains in the way for instance, or open ocean either end and to the sides of the tarmac - such as Kansai in Japan which is an amazing piece of engineering and which does in fact put up with some of the worst weather on the planet - ferocious crosswinds and downpours like you wouldn't believe, yet it just carries on functioning with nary a break) and you need a little extra help to avoid touching down on the wrong bit of terrain. Accurate GPS will tell you if you're over water, an aviator unit tells you your altitude as well I believe, in AMSL and ATL (I have seen them in sailplane cockpits), all ILS is really, when you boil it down, is an autopilot landing system based on a beacon.
it's the difference between landing on the runway or plowing through someone's house if you're landing on instruments.
So yeah, fairly detrimental for the five hundred passengers.
It *is* a FOAD to the associatives, he's - rightly - told them that they have NO RIGHT to bring suit over copyright claims. If that gets through appeal and is upheld, then it will set precedent (yet again? See ABKO Music Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 944 F.2d 971, 980 (2d Cir. 1991) for previous mention, also several other citations contained in the decision FTA) which could (maybe?) spell the end of **AA "Jon Doe" suits. We live in hope.
Long, and thanks for all the fish.
Nope. Doesn't sound right.