As I understand it, public domain does not imply that derive works are public domain.
You create a game, and make it public domain. Someone modifies your code and sells it as commercial software, then sues anyone distributing the original for violating their copyright. This is more or less what happened with some crappy Unix game back in the day to push RMS over the edge.
Well, I love the model used by SE Linux - make security program-oriented instead of user-oriented. It really ramps up the security of a trusted distro, by thwarting a malicious patch.
Good luck with that plan. I mean sure, if you're RMS and "browse the web" by wgetting the page and emailing to yourself to read in EMACS then sure, you're probably safe from drive-by attacks. But if you need JS enabled to browse then you're vulnerable.
So what's that secure operating system again? I used to argue that SE Linux was the only OS that could reasonably called secure, but given the recent NSA revelations I think we're back to nothing. Or are you still complaining about Windows 98?
We have had problems reassembling / resyncing RAID arrays because one stubborn drive pops out and fails too easily (we run two parity drives - so if you are already down 2 drives a 3rd stubborn drive is a bummer). If the drive would just stay in and try harder,
IMO that drive should get shredded at the first sign of trouble (ideally, you'd be getting SMART alerts pre-fail at least some of the time). But of course it's very common for multiple drives in an array to fail within a short time window, due to shared environmental problems. I'd call 2 drives failure in a short window a signal that it's time to replace the server and re-sync its data to the other copies.
But until we reassemble the RAID array and get the file system back online, we can't even check what we are holding
Except for the synchronous copy on the other server(s), right? And the async off-site copies for any data that you've had for a little while?
It's quite absurd that ripping my Bluray to get "just a damn file" to watch is illegal (and it's not in all countries), but since it is, I have no incentive to buy the Bluray instead of torrenting someone else's rip.
If the MPAA had the vaguest glimmering of a clue, they'd notice the success of DRM-free iTunes and just offer every damn movie and TV show for paid download, DRM-free, from one central site. I'd happily pay to access that site!
Depends on how the RAID controllers are configured - what you describe gives better single-IO latency at the cost of fewer IOPS overall, but favoring IOPS is the norm for hardware RAID controllers. While instinctively I want to say "however Oracle does it, do it the opposite way", I can certainly understand that the former use case is important to some (at which point, yeah, no real reason to care about TLER). Sometimes you optimize for latency, sometimes for bandwidth.
No, the point is that you get your redundancy from RAID, instead of from the drive trying it's best to pass that track under that head and hope something coherent emerges. Trying to read a damaged sector is less reliable than reading the undamaged redundant copy. It's great that you "value reliability" and all, but it doesn't sound like you've thought it through.
At any scale the only interesting question is "where are your multiple copies written - those servers aren't all in the same data center, right". Reliability of an individual server is just a cost analysis on replacement costs vs higher-end components, with the inevitable trend of "high end -> commodity -> disposable" over time. Data reliability is properly a measure of the size of the disaster you can survive, and "damage to one sector" is as uninteresting as it gets.
You don't need SAS drives for TLER, just the Enterprise-grade SATA. TLER is just the correct behavior for RAID - if there's a media error on one drive, the right thing to do is immediately read the redundant copy from another drive, and re-write the problem block at the RAID controller level.. 90 seconds of retry is the right thing to do when that's your only copy of the data.
The SAS/SATA divide in the disks themselves is mostly about IOPS - SAS drives seem targeted for the IOPS-bound market (we don't care how big the drive is, we only care about IOPS per spindle), but SSD is killing that off. SAS RAID is just corporate momentum at this point, as Enterprise-grade SSD (low capacity, high re-write count) is now better across the board than SAS.
You can't use a consumer drive in a RAID array if that drive will spend 90 seconds trying to recover a normal read error before sparing the sector out. TLER means "give up almost immediately" on media errors.
Yes, it's a bit of a scam that you have to buy a high-end drive to get TLER, since it's just a flag in the firmware, but it's still critical ro RAID.
The CME/CBOT commodities markets meet any reasonable persons definition of a free market. There a many pages of exchange rules, and a few pages of law and regulation involved to trade, say, corn, but effectively anyone can buy or sell and there are no imposed price limits. Yes, there are structural protections to ensure the price doesn't move too fast, and that those buying/selling can actually deliver, but in practice it's a "free market".
You don't need "complete absence of regulation" or any such nonsense to have a free market, what you need is the absence of price controls, and low barrier to entry.
Because, get this, different people have different values. Bizarre I know. The people of California may have a strikingly different idea of perfect government than the people of Texas. If each state does it's own thing, and people can move between states, then the people of Texas can be quite happy with the Texas way, while the people of California are quite happy with the California way even though they are quite different.
Neat concept, what?
I've frequently moved to where the work is. I moved to California because that's where the best jobs were for me. I was so unhappy with how California was run that I left, but the fact that there was good work in California is an important part of that picture - if I want the good California jobs, it's on me to put up with the California government. By my values that was a poor trade-off, and I left - that doesn't mean I'm the universal arbiter of good and bad government, it just means that I went to where I'd be happier, while no doubt others moved in the opposite direction.
Tape does not rot. Bad tapes were bad when created (at least this is true of half-inch linear format - some of the old personal tape formats were crap, but they're all dead now). LTO tape archive lifetime depends on the tape, but it's up to 30 years. You only need to verify tape once after you write it - if the tape was written successfully, it's good until the backing starts to fail.
Your upstream to them is free as well, as you're already paying for an Internet connection. "It's free because you're paying"? That's the opposite of free. You might want to check the math on how much internet connectivity you need to buy to upload 1TB in any useful timeframe - those connections aren't cheap.
Still, it's not all about price. If Amazon gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling of safety then more power to you!
It's the model that worked for many decades, of course. But we're already seeing private practices move to cash-only boutique service, which is sad - we're deliberately creating a two-tier healthcare system.
I tend to agree, though it depends how big the average client's weekly/monthly Glacier upload is. Typically for backup you pool to disk in some way in the short term, sort the data out in the way that makes sense for your needs, then write to tape. They say they don't use tape for Glacier, and I believe it.
OTOH, for their internal operations I bet they use tape as a backup for their backup, and don't give much thought to how they'd ever recover at scale. While I think tape is great for long-term archiving (as makes sense for scientific data), it's not a great answer if you lose a whole datacenter.
The big STK libraries are "medium scale" tape storage. Large scale uses a warehouse full of tapes, and humans or warehouse robotics to find tapes in the stacks and bring them to the front where the tape drives are. Latency goes up that way, of course, but it's quite economical.
The large scale tape approach has much higher storage density than a datacenter, with very low power and cooling requirements. This approach pre-dates the disk drive, and is very mature and boring by operations standards. It's also by far the cheapest approach.
Tapes don't rot. A bad tape was bad when written (but frustratingly may still read in the bad drive that made it). The only sensible backup strategy is to mount some sample of your backups and verify them on a schedule, to catch it when a drive goes bad. Any good tape backup product will let you schedule verify jobs, and running those is a small price to pay to get confidence.
In practice you'll get 30-60 MB/s of file reads. The raw transfer speed for a disk file system is just the start of the story. For tape, unlike disk, you can keep the whole pipe moving at the max media speed.
The basic rule of thumb is that when a new generation of LTO comes out, you need one tape drive per 6-disk RAID array, but tape refreshes less frequently so you need some headroom.
I agree completely about what's broken. The problem with the HMO model is that plenty of good doctors don't want to be employees. They are small business owners, paid a high toll of years to get there, and just aren't interested in having a boss. I want a system that incentivizes the best and brightest to be doctors, not stockbrokers.
Anyway, for long term savings the National Savings Bank will give you points over inflation. They will promise to track better than the rate of inflation in interest. They can do this because they are, after all, the government, if they can't make it worthwhile to borrow money at points over inflation they definitely shouldn't be borrowing from foreign banks! Of course "worthwhile" gets to be over a long view when you're a government. Money spent today ensuring a five year old is healthy and well educated pays off twenty, forty, sixty years down the line.
America has bonds like this too (TIPS). However, "inflation adjusted" is based on inflation numbers that the government has a huge incentive to understate. IMO the only way our government can avoid fiscal collapse is to do just that. Again, it's just your judgment call on how much you trust the government that backs this stuff.
There are many other choices than "savings account" or "mattress". There are a wide variety of bond investments, bond ETFs and mutual funds, money market accounts, and so on. But you pay a lot for safety, and you also pay for the convenience of liquidity, trading in very small amounts, and retail convenience.
The Internet has nearly removed those last two concerns, however. If you educate yourself on the risks of bonds (both inflation and default risks), which is no harder than educating yourself about how bitcoin works, it's easy to match inflation with funds with daily liquidity, ability to move small amounts, and really quite small risk. But if you want that government backing against default risk, you're going to lose vs inflation - you have to pay for that insurance.
When I get hungry I go to the grocery store. I don't have to wonder whether I can afford to do it, or keep thousands of dollars in reserve. Normal doctor's visits are a different discussion than care that's quite expensive because of limited facilities, equipment, or skilled experts. In the latter case, someone is making the rationing decisions. If it's your doctor, behind the scenes, that's still quite close to the decision being made. OTOH, there were discussions after the London riots about stripping benefits from identified rioters - if the government makes the decision about who gets care, abuse of that is a question of when, not if.
For the case of routine care - just curious: what are waiting times like? And do you have a regular physician who sees your family every time, or a 15-minute slot with the first doctor available from the pool? We're struggling to avoid the latter in America.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, public domain does not imply that derive works are public domain.
You create a game, and make it public domain. Someone modifies your code and sells it as commercial software, then sues anyone distributing the original for violating their copyright. This is more or less what happened with some crappy Unix game back in the day to push RMS over the edge.
Well, I love the model used by SE Linux - make security program-oriented instead of user-oriented. It really ramps up the security of a trusted distro, by thwarting a malicious patch.
Good luck with that plan. I mean sure, if you're RMS and "browse the web" by wgetting the page and emailing to yourself to read in EMACS then sure, you're probably safe from drive-by attacks. But if you need JS enabled to browse then you're vulnerable.
So what's that secure operating system again? I used to argue that SE Linux was the only OS that could reasonably called secure, but given the recent NSA revelations I think we're back to nothing. Or are you still complaining about Windows 98?
We have had problems reassembling / resyncing RAID arrays because one stubborn drive pops out and fails too easily (we run two parity drives - so if you are already down 2 drives a 3rd stubborn drive is a bummer). If the drive would just stay in and try harder,
IMO that drive should get shredded at the first sign of trouble (ideally, you'd be getting SMART alerts pre-fail at least some of the time). But of course it's very common for multiple drives in an array to fail within a short time window, due to shared environmental problems. I'd call 2 drives failure in a short window a signal that it's time to replace the server and re-sync its data to the other copies.
But until we reassemble the RAID array and get the file system back online, we can't even check what we are holding
Except for the synchronous copy on the other server(s), right? And the async off-site copies for any data that you've had for a little while?
It's quite absurd that ripping my Bluray to get "just a damn file" to watch is illegal (and it's not in all countries), but since it is, I have no incentive to buy the Bluray instead of torrenting someone else's rip.
If the MPAA had the vaguest glimmering of a clue, they'd notice the success of DRM-free iTunes and just offer every damn movie and TV show for paid download, DRM-free, from one central site. I'd happily pay to access that site!
I'm guessing that if you're pawing through it enough to accidentally lose a finger, it's a search.
Depends on how the RAID controllers are configured - what you describe gives better single-IO latency at the cost of fewer IOPS overall, but favoring IOPS is the norm for hardware RAID controllers. While instinctively I want to say "however Oracle does it, do it the opposite way", I can certainly understand that the former use case is important to some (at which point, yeah, no real reason to care about TLER). Sometimes you optimize for latency, sometimes for bandwidth.
No, the point is that you get your redundancy from RAID, instead of from the drive trying it's best to pass that track under that head and hope something coherent emerges. Trying to read a damaged sector is less reliable than reading the undamaged redundant copy. It's great that you "value reliability" and all, but it doesn't sound like you've thought it through.
At any scale the only interesting question is "where are your multiple copies written - those servers aren't all in the same data center, right". Reliability of an individual server is just a cost analysis on replacement costs vs higher-end components, with the inevitable trend of "high end -> commodity -> disposable" over time. Data reliability is properly a measure of the size of the disaster you can survive, and "damage to one sector" is as uninteresting as it gets.
You don't need SAS drives for TLER, just the Enterprise-grade SATA. TLER is just the correct behavior for RAID - if there's a media error on one drive, the right thing to do is immediately read the redundant copy from another drive, and re-write the problem block at the RAID controller level.. 90 seconds of retry is the right thing to do when that's your only copy of the data.
The SAS/SATA divide in the disks themselves is mostly about IOPS - SAS drives seem targeted for the IOPS-bound market (we don't care how big the drive is, we only care about IOPS per spindle), but SSD is killing that off. SAS RAID is just corporate momentum at this point, as Enterprise-grade SSD (low capacity, high re-write count) is now better across the board than SAS.
You can't use a consumer drive in a RAID array if that drive will spend 90 seconds trying to recover a normal read error before sparing the sector out. TLER means "give up almost immediately" on media errors.
Yes, it's a bit of a scam that you have to buy a high-end drive to get TLER, since it's just a flag in the firmware, but it's still critical ro RAID.
There's no such thing as a free market.
The CME/CBOT commodities markets meet any reasonable persons definition of a free market. There a many pages of exchange rules, and a few pages of law and regulation involved to trade, say, corn, but effectively anyone can buy or sell and there are no imposed price limits. Yes, there are structural protections to ensure the price doesn't move too fast, and that those buying/selling can actually deliver, but in practice it's a "free market".
You don't need "complete absence of regulation" or any such nonsense to have a free market, what you need is the absence of price controls, and low barrier to entry.
No one much worries about odometers being set forwards. Rollers indeed.
Because, get this, different people have different values. Bizarre I know. The people of California may have a strikingly different idea of perfect government than the people of Texas. If each state does it's own thing, and people can move between states, then the people of Texas can be quite happy with the Texas way, while the people of California are quite happy with the California way even though they are quite different.
Neat concept, what?
I've frequently moved to where the work is. I moved to California because that's where the best jobs were for me. I was so unhappy with how California was run that I left, but the fact that there was good work in California is an important part of that picture - if I want the good California jobs, it's on me to put up with the California government. By my values that was a poor trade-off, and I left - that doesn't mean I'm the universal arbiter of good and bad government, it just means that I went to where I'd be happier, while no doubt others moved in the opposite direction.
Tape does not rot. Bad tapes were bad when created (at least this is true of half-inch linear format - some of the old personal tape formats were crap, but they're all dead now). LTO tape archive lifetime depends on the tape, but it's up to 30 years. You only need to verify tape once after you write it - if the tape was written successfully, it's good until the backing starts to fail.
Your upstream to them is free as well, as you're already paying for an Internet connection. "It's free because you're paying"? That's the opposite of free. You might want to check the math on how much internet connectivity you need to buy to upload 1TB in any useful timeframe - those connections aren't cheap.
Still, it's not all about price. If Amazon gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling of safety then more power to you!
It's the model that worked for many decades, of course. But we're already seeing private practices move to cash-only boutique service, which is sad - we're deliberately creating a two-tier healthcare system.
I tend to agree, though it depends how big the average client's weekly/monthly Glacier upload is. Typically for backup you pool to disk in some way in the short term, sort the data out in the way that makes sense for your needs, then write to tape. They say they don't use tape for Glacier, and I believe it.
OTOH, for their internal operations I bet they use tape as a backup for their backup, and don't give much thought to how they'd ever recover at scale. While I think tape is great for long-term archiving (as makes sense for scientific data), it's not a great answer if you lose a whole datacenter.
The big STK libraries are "medium scale" tape storage. Large scale uses a warehouse full of tapes, and humans or warehouse robotics to find tapes in the stacks and bring them to the front where the tape drives are. Latency goes up that way, of course, but it's quite economical.
The large scale tape approach has much higher storage density than a datacenter, with very low power and cooling requirements. This approach pre-dates the disk drive, and is very mature and boring by operations standards. It's also by far the cheapest approach.
S3/Galcier are really quite expensive per TB. Make a backup tape, run a verify job on a different tape drive, and that tape is good for 20 years.
A 2.5 TB tape (before compression) costs ~$80, and the per-year storage cost for a box of tapes sent to Iron Mountain is trivial.
12 2.5 TB tapes ~= $1000, plus a few bucks a year for physical storage.
30 TB stored in S3 is $2700 per year, plus a heck of a lot of upstream bandwidth to get it to them.
Tapes don't rot. A bad tape was bad when written (but frustratingly may still read in the bad drive that made it). The only sensible backup strategy is to mount some sample of your backups and verify them on a schedule, to catch it when a drive goes bad. Any good tape backup product will let you schedule verify jobs, and running those is a small price to pay to get confidence.
In practice you'll get 30-60 MB/s of file reads. The raw transfer speed for a disk file system is just the start of the story. For tape, unlike disk, you can keep the whole pipe moving at the max media speed.
The basic rule of thumb is that when a new generation of LTO comes out, you need one tape drive per 6-disk RAID array, but tape refreshes less frequently so you need some headroom.
I agree completely about what's broken. The problem with the HMO model is that plenty of good doctors don't want to be employees. They are small business owners, paid a high toll of years to get there, and just aren't interested in having a boss. I want a system that incentivizes the best and brightest to be doctors, not stockbrokers.
Anyway, for long term savings the National Savings Bank will give you points over inflation. They will promise to track better than the rate of inflation in interest. They can do this because they are, after all, the government, if they can't make it worthwhile to borrow money at points over inflation they definitely shouldn't be borrowing from foreign banks! Of course "worthwhile" gets to be over a long view when you're a government. Money spent today ensuring a five year old is healthy and well educated pays off twenty, forty, sixty years down the line.
America has bonds like this too (TIPS). However, "inflation adjusted" is based on inflation numbers that the government has a huge incentive to understate. IMO the only way our government can avoid fiscal collapse is to do just that. Again, it's just your judgment call on how much you trust the government that backs this stuff.
There are many other choices than "savings account" or "mattress". There are a wide variety of bond investments, bond ETFs and mutual funds, money market accounts, and so on. But you pay a lot for safety, and you also pay for the convenience of liquidity, trading in very small amounts, and retail convenience.
The Internet has nearly removed those last two concerns, however. If you educate yourself on the risks of bonds (both inflation and default risks), which is no harder than educating yourself about how bitcoin works, it's easy to match inflation with funds with daily liquidity, ability to move small amounts, and really quite small risk. But if you want that government backing against default risk, you're going to lose vs inflation - you have to pay for that insurance.
When I get hungry I go to the grocery store. I don't have to wonder whether I can afford to do it, or keep thousands of dollars in reserve. Normal doctor's visits are a different discussion than care that's quite expensive because of limited facilities, equipment, or skilled experts. In the latter case, someone is making the rationing decisions. If it's your doctor, behind the scenes, that's still quite close to the decision being made. OTOH, there were discussions after the London riots about stripping benefits from identified rioters - if the government makes the decision about who gets care, abuse of that is a question of when, not if.
For the case of routine care - just curious: what are waiting times like? And do you have a regular physician who sees your family every time, or a 15-minute slot with the first doctor available from the pool? We're struggling to avoid the latter in America.