I had the owner of the company i work for ask me about it, but he did so with a chuckle. i think most halfway-intelligent people will understand that without proof and without trial, SCO is just trying to make a buck before they go out of business. I think in (american) football, they call that a hail mary. They have nothing to lose by talking the talk, and walking the walk, and they have everything to gain. Their product is still stuck in the 80's and they have no money to bring it up to date.
if you have the cpu, you might try compressing the data with the -C switch given to ssh. I know over dialup, it makes ssh sessions slightly more responsive.
probably because the server was flooded, and not their bandwidth. I didn't read the article though, so this could be spelled out better.
either way, who cares? 20Mbps isn't all that much bandwidth. There's just about no reason that they couldn't have their routers just drop the offending packets.
i can't believe they didn't have some sort of load balancer or a cluser for their website. I am sure it gets slammed with people after each press release.
...I think they should have held out for someone like AOL. Picture this: Aol buys spamcop and integrates it into their network. They go, if you don't use our blacklist by middle of next year, you will no longer be able to send us e-mail. That gives a deadline to all of the jokers that are running open relays to get their software configured up or they will not be able to send mail to AOL or anyone else doing business with AOL. That could be a huge self-regulating spam blocker.
On a side note, I wonder what will happen to the donated mirror servers. If SpamCop gets funding, are they going to still keep using the freebie public mirror servers or are they going to build their own and start paying for colo space? If they are going to build their own and pay for colo space, that will eat in to that $1Mil pretty fast.
Who would be the ISP? In a tiered market like the internet, everyone always buys internet from someone else, or peers with someone else. That's why it's a World Wide Web. What's to stop someone from setting up a dialup account in Brazil and just spamming through it instead of using the ISP's mail system? Sure, you can not allow SMTP traffic on your network, but then how do you support business customers that want to run their own mail server?
it works fine in a hardware mirror. There shouldn't be a need to do any rebooting.
however, if you go the software route, you can use a mirror disk that is not exactly the same size, as long as it is larger. Windows shouldn't complain too much if you put in a different mirror drive than what you had in there previously. You'll probably have to break the mirror and then re-establish the mirror, but you should be good to go otherwise.
Just a note, on windows 2000 (i'm not sure about xp or win2003), you can't set a removable disk as dynamic, and therefore, cannot set it to do any software raid functions. i don't see why you wouldn't be able to do it except for dumb reasons in windows. I know linux software raid doesn't care if you have/dev/null as one of the raid devices (ok so maybe it'll complain a little, but you can just redirect the errors to/dev/null too).
The operating system should adapt to hardware changes. That is part of it's job. having to reinstall a server from scratch because windows couldn't detect a driver for a sound card is a big waste of time.
use the software mirror that has been included in windows since at least NT4.0.
1. put in an identical drive, and make a mirror 2. run the machine for a few hours while it syncs up. 3. reboot and take out the fully mirrored drive.
that takes a while, but it should provide a decent solution to backup all of the files on a windows machine. You can even run the system while the backup is running. You still have to reboot at least twice, and have a drive that is equal or greater in size, but it should work flawlessly if you know what you're doing.
The laws are stupid because they make a distinction between digital and analog. In the terms of music, an analog performance can be as good, or better quality than a digital one. A live performance is technically an analog performance (supposed to be anyways).
Wouldn't a pure digital performance be one generated by a computer in the first place? CD's and mp3's are just analog performances recorded on digital media (most of the time).
What's stopping someone from making a device that makes every possible sound in digital format, and then running through billions of iterations, and then copyrighting the output?
A million monkeys with a million typewriters....something about shakespeare...
1. a computer, with a few 300 gig drives in a 1U rackspace should do. small form factor, easily obtained, standard size. 2. version control should be built into the backup solution, but it should be super easy with normal disks. remember, just about any backup utility that will write to tape also writes to disk. 3. apm can put your drive to sleep, and wake it backup when it's accessed. toggle this information with hdparm (in linux). 4. there's these things called hard drive caddies that let you take out the drive if you really need to, but if you have a few 300gig drives, how often is that necessary? 5. What have you been smoking??? tapes are MUCH slower than disks, and have an overall higher price to performance ratio. vintage disks will also be able to survive at a higher temperature than tape, which will melt instantly. If you are backing up to tape, what happens when your backup solution catches on fire? you lost your tapes.
it sounds like you are a little behind the times. most of your solutions would have been adequate about 10 years ago when disks were slow and expensive. now days, it's much easier to use a $100 disk obtained from your local computer store than finding an obscure tape bought over the internet from a retailer in japan. You said something about there's a reliability problem with disks. That is true, but there is also a reliability problem with tape readers. If you've ever suffered a failure that required a restore, you'll appreciate the speed that the information can be access with a disk. There are also data recovery places that can remove the platters from a disk and get information off of them. To do this with tape, you would have to make sure the tape wasn't fused together or otherwise damaged.
I do backups over the internet and ethernet networks and i've used many disk and tape solutions. Ultimately, the reliability depends on your knowledge on all of the processes involved. If you use tape because of the reasons you gave, you should do some more research before you build out another solution. There's no reason why 95% of the backup applications can't use rsync and a few big drives.
hopefully you're not actually putting them in a rackmount case. It would be much more efficient to rig it up where they are just bare drives out in the open. Sure, it looks like hell, but you should be able to stack almost all of the drives in a single rack with a bad-ass motherboard and with 3 or 4 of these in each of them. You should be able to find a decent dual motherboard with 4 64-bit pci slots on them. That would be (4x12+4) 52 drives per computer. At 300GB per drive, that would be over 15 terabytes per computer. You would still need about 64 of them to get your petabyte, but you should be able to put 8-10 per rack.
my math could be wrong though. Still, if you want it to look pretty, it's probably better to go blow your cash on fancy dells, or get Sun to custom make you a $50mil storage solution.
I have an old PowerBook 540c in mint condition. From the specs:
- introduced 1994.05.16 at $4,840; discontinued 1995.08.26 - requires System 7.1.1 or later; highest version supported without a PPC upgrade is Mac OS 8.1. - CPU: 33 MHz 68LC040 - FPU: none
I bought it in 1998 for $20. I even ran rc5 on it for a while, and it would take about 3 days to finish the smallest block (with the rc5-64 challenge). It was a real POS, but it was small and portable.
My first machine was a 486-33 (really 25mhz, but overclocked)with 4 megs of ram running win3.1. I used it all through 1994-1996 until i could afford a pentium 200, which i still have collecting dust.
The oldest i am still using is a generic k6-400. Hey, it runs win98 just fine for web browsing and e-mail checking.
i have given hardware better than any of that to goodwill. You guys should go dig through the trash behind any computer store and you might find some upgrades.
system: virus/spam scanners --> mail system dns: MX 30 backupmx.domain.com MX 20 virus/spam scanners MX 10 mail system
and we were getting tons of undeliverable mail for our customer's domains at the 20 and 30 MX entries.
There was no reason to even bother with the backup solution since the virus/spam scanners would just queue it up anyways, so we now set it up like this:
system: virus/spam scanners --> mail system dns: MX 10 virus/spam scanners
and then have the virus/spam scanners process every piece of e-mail and queue it if it cannot deliver to the mail system. We use qmail and smtproutes to move the mail to their server. If their server is down, it just stays queued up.
you trying to say that a critical failure in a microsoft operating system couldn't cause death or injury? What about when the government uses it for navigation of a Navy Submarine? What would have happened if that was also running the big, red, nuke button?
Do you know who beta tests Microsoft products? The paying consumer.
Who beta tests automobiles? Hundreds and hundreds of professional test engineers until the end product is as safe as the government regulates.
Currently, in the US, it is illegal to write or knowingly spread a malicious virus or trojan. Isn't the Microsoft Windows series of operating systems guilty of spreading malicious viruses and trojans?
Slashdot Mirror
I had the owner of the company i work for ask me about it, but he did so with a chuckle. i think most halfway-intelligent people will understand that without proof and without trial, SCO is just trying to make a buck before they go out of business. I think in (american) football, they call that a hail mary. They have nothing to lose by talking the talk, and walking the walk, and they have everything to gain. Their product is still stuck in the 80's and they have no money to bring it up to date.
money (or lack of) does strange things to people.
off topic, but
it's funny when i get 100k hits a day from some crappy spider trying to go to every link on the internet.
if you have the cpu, you might try compressing the data with the -C switch given to ssh. I know over dialup, it makes ssh sessions slightly more responsive.
oh, and kill bill vol 1 was awesome too. I can't wait for the rest of the series.
nemo was pretty darn good for a major released cartoon.
The matrixes were ok, but didn't live up to the hype the first one caused.
i personally though 28 days later was a good movie.
probably because the server was flooded, and not their bandwidth. I didn't read the article though, so this could be spelled out better.
either way, who cares? 20Mbps isn't all that much bandwidth. There's just about no reason that they couldn't have their routers just drop the offending packets.
i can't believe they didn't have some sort of load balancer or a cluser for their website. I am sure it gets slammed with people after each press release.
...I think they should have held out for someone like AOL. Picture this: Aol buys spamcop and integrates it into their network. They go, if you don't use our blacklist by middle of next year, you will no longer be able to send us e-mail. That gives a deadline to all of the jokers that are running open relays to get their software configured up or they will not be able to send mail to AOL or anyone else doing business with AOL. That could be a huge self-regulating spam blocker.
On a side note, I wonder what will happen to the donated mirror servers. If SpamCop gets funding, are they going to still keep using the freebie public mirror servers or are they going to build their own and start paying for colo space? If they are going to build their own and pay for colo space, that will eat in to that $1Mil pretty fast.
post it in one newsgroup. They'll find you.
Who would be the ISP? In a tiered market like the internet, everyone always buys internet from someone else, or peers with someone else. That's why it's a World Wide Web. What's to stop someone from setting up a dialup account in Brazil and just spamming through it instead of using the ISP's mail system? Sure, you can not allow SMTP traffic on your network, but then how do you support business customers that want to run their own mail server?
OT:
*JINX*
one word:
OpenOffice.
it works fine in a hardware mirror. There shouldn't be a need to do any rebooting.
/dev/null as one of the raid devices (ok so maybe it'll complain a little, but you can just redirect the errors to /dev/null too).
however, if you go the software route, you can use a mirror disk that is not exactly the same size, as long as it is larger. Windows shouldn't complain too much if you put in a different mirror drive than what you had in there previously. You'll probably have to break the mirror and then re-establish the mirror, but you should be good to go otherwise.
Just a note, on windows 2000 (i'm not sure about xp or win2003), you can't set a removable disk as dynamic, and therefore, cannot set it to do any software raid functions. i don't see why you wouldn't be able to do it except for dumb reasons in windows. I know linux software raid doesn't care if you have
The operating system should adapt to hardware changes. That is part of it's job. having to reinstall a server from scratch because windows couldn't detect a driver for a sound card is a big waste of time.
use the software mirror that has been included in windows since at least NT4.0.
1. put in an identical drive, and make a mirror
2. run the machine for a few hours while it syncs up.
3. reboot and take out the fully mirrored drive.
that takes a while, but it should provide a decent solution to backup all of the files on a windows machine. You can even run the system while the backup is running. You still have to reboot at least twice, and have a drive that is equal or greater in size, but it should work flawlessly if you know what you're doing.
I think you're thinking about Optimus Prime.
The laws are stupid because they make a distinction between digital and analog. In the terms of music, an analog performance can be as good, or better quality than a digital one. A live performance is technically an analog performance (supposed to be anyways).
Wouldn't a pure digital performance be one generated by a computer in the first place? CD's and mp3's are just analog performances recorded on digital media (most of the time).
What's stopping someone from making a device that makes every possible sound in digital format, and then running through billions of iterations, and then copyrighting the output?
A million monkeys with a million typewriters....something about shakespeare...
i could be full of poo-poo though.
HERE's a normal http mirror for those too lazy to get bittorrent.
Be nice.
An Ultra320 drive can sustain 350MB/sec? i think you have your facts mixed up.
you can get a 160Gig ide drive for about $106 right now which is around $.66 per gig.
let's see....
1. a computer, with a few 300 gig drives in a 1U rackspace should do. small form factor, easily obtained, standard size.
2. version control should be built into the backup solution, but it should be super easy with normal disks. remember, just about any backup utility that will write to tape also writes to disk.
3. apm can put your drive to sleep, and wake it backup when it's accessed. toggle this information with hdparm (in linux).
4. there's these things called hard drive caddies that let you take out the drive if you really need to, but if you have a few 300gig drives, how often is that necessary?
5. What have you been smoking??? tapes are MUCH slower than disks, and have an overall higher price to performance ratio. vintage disks will also be able to survive at a higher temperature than tape, which will melt instantly. If you are backing up to tape, what happens when your backup solution catches on fire? you lost your tapes.
it sounds like you are a little behind the times. most of your solutions would have been adequate about 10 years ago when disks were slow and expensive. now days, it's much easier to use a $100 disk obtained from your local computer store than finding an obscure tape bought over the internet from a retailer in japan. You said something about there's a reliability problem with disks. That is true, but there is also a reliability problem with tape readers. If you've ever suffered a failure that required a restore, you'll appreciate the speed that the information can be access with a disk. There are also data recovery places that can remove the platters from a disk and get information off of them. To do this with tape, you would have to make sure the tape wasn't fused together or otherwise damaged.
I do backups over the internet and ethernet networks and i've used many disk and tape solutions. Ultimately, the reliability depends on your knowledge on all of the processes involved. If you use tape because of the reasons you gave, you should do some more research before you build out another solution. There's no reason why 95% of the backup applications can't use rsync and a few big drives.
hopefully you're not actually putting them in a rackmount case. It would be much more efficient to rig it up where they are just bare drives out in the open. Sure, it looks like hell, but you should be able to stack almost all of the drives in a single rack with a bad-ass motherboard and with 3 or 4 of these in each of them. You should be able to find a decent dual motherboard with 4 64-bit pci slots on them. That would be (4x12+4) 52 drives per computer. At 300GB per drive, that would be over 15 terabytes per computer. You would still need about 64 of them to get your petabyte, but you should be able to put 8-10 per rack.
my math could be wrong though. Still, if you want it to look pretty, it's probably better to go blow your cash on fancy dells, or get Sun to custom make you a $50mil storage solution.
I have an old PowerBook 540c in mint condition. From the specs:
- introduced 1994.05.16 at $4,840; discontinued 1995.08.26
- requires System 7.1.1 or later; highest version supported without a PPC upgrade is Mac OS 8.1.
- CPU: 33 MHz 68LC040
- FPU: none
I bought it in 1998 for $20. I even ran rc5 on it for a while, and it would take about 3 days to finish the smallest block (with the rc5-64 challenge). It was a real POS, but it was small and portable.
My first machine was a 486-33 (really 25mhz, but overclocked)with 4 megs of ram running win3.1. I used it all through 1994-1996 until i could afford a pentium 200, which i still have collecting dust.
The oldest i am still using is a generic k6-400. Hey, it runs win98 just fine for web browsing and e-mail checking.
you've gotta be kidding.
i have given hardware better than any of that to goodwill. You guys should go dig through the trash behind any computer store and you might find some upgrades.
I was doing something like this for customers:
system:
virus/spam scanners --> mail system
dns:
MX 30 backupmx.domain.com
MX 20 virus/spam scanners
MX 10 mail system
and we were getting tons of undeliverable mail for our customer's domains at the 20 and 30 MX entries.
There was no reason to even bother with the backup solution since the virus/spam scanners would just queue it up anyways, so we now set it up like this:
system:
virus/spam scanners --> mail system
dns:
MX 10 virus/spam scanners
and then have the virus/spam scanners process every piece of e-mail and queue it if it cannot deliver to the mail system. We use qmail and smtproutes to move the mail to their server. If their server is down, it just stays queued up.
you trying to say that a critical failure in a microsoft operating system couldn't cause death or injury? What about when the government uses it for navigation of a Navy Submarine? What would have happened if that was also running the big, red, nuke button?
Do you know who beta tests Microsoft products?
The paying consumer.
Who beta tests automobiles?
Hundreds and hundreds of professional test engineers until the end product is as safe as the government regulates.
Currently, in the US, it is illegal to write or knowingly spread a malicious virus or trojan. Isn't the Microsoft Windows series of operating systems guilty of spreading malicious viruses and trojans?