Didn't you read the article about the SGI system running Linux on 64 Itanium 2 processors the other day??
You could always order a Unisys ES7000 with 32 CPUs. They have 3 models. A Xeon one, an Itanium 2 one and one that can use both.
If you don't think 512 processors and 1TB ram in 4 racks is interesting then I wonder what Intel could do for you.
Most of the applications for this type of platform are completely custom or already written for these types of platforms. There is a reason the high end stuff has gone to Sun, Alpha, IBM and SGI. They have much higher scalibility without the latencies introduced by clusters of smaller Intel boxes and they are extremely matured in these areas. Commodity hardware is great but not always the right tool for the job.
I was thinking about iSync myself. If you can get it to do iCal and address book then you might have a sort-of Exchange killer here.
Just use your OpenBSD fake.mac server and put a good MTA on it and you have 90% of the functionallity most people are looking for. Could make a real nice package.
Maybe Apple should setup OS X server for this and keep in in the family instead of waiting for it to scatter to the wind. They are missing a huge opportunity here if they sit on it.
Someone told you to use Jabber and they are right because it has already been done. Jabber servers have several plugins that allow you to do MSN, AOL, Yahoo!, IRC, Jabber and a couple other lesser known protocols. Most Jabber clients will support the major protocols and are available on numerous platforms. You can setup public or private servers so I think you already have your answer on that one.
Re:This has been up and advertised for months
on
Fake Your Own .Mac Server
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There is a free trial that lists the backup software. You only get limited space with the free trial but you can get the software and setup your own server for backups.
Plenty of corporate firewalls are setup to shut off outbound encrypted traffic if it exceeds a certain level. My work's PIX does this and doesn't matter if you are tunneling ssh/ssl/etc. on any port, it will shut it off if you get crazy with bandwidth.
I was speaking more generally and do agree that Firewire is the better choice for most higher speed applications. I do own some Macs but none with Firewire.
Perhaps we should be talking about IEEE 1394 instead since we don't have a licensed port?? Is Apple still charging per port or did they finally drop it instead of reducing the cost?
I considered putting an extra period in my comment so the one after com could be the correct dot. It may be often forgotten but it was on my mind when I posted.
Why should facts bother a good marketing campaign?
They had pretty good steam and most people didn't know about the change anyway. Most of the ones that did had already made their mind up one way other about Sun and their products.
We should talk about F root server too. It changed from DEC to Compaq to now HP but the specs stay the same. Actually it's the same 2 node cluster of Alpha boxes and they update the manufacturer name on the webpage and nothing else. It is one of the busiest of the root servers.
This is a first release of a beta driver. They are probably still in code up to their neck to stop and worry about some trivial wording mistake. Once the drivers are getting tweaked instead of major rewrites then they can look at the little issues.
Re:Why should we care?
on
Root Zone Changed
·
· Score: 5, Informative
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET is considered the ultimate authority in DNS. It is also called "dot" and used to be a healthy Sun box. So they really were the "dot" in.com in a sense and that's what made it so funny. That box was replaced with an IBM box and now IBM could say they are the "dot" in.com.
Avaya's small phone switches first line or two switches to analog if you lose power. You can plug a standard phone in or some of the phones have a pass through so you can plug a single line phone into it for 911. The Partner II mentioned is such a product.
I was going to suggest these products. I used to be the network guy at an Avaya provider and we used to use these for VOIP. It was great when you needed a couple lines, extensions, etc. remotely. Most vendor solutions are expensive and centrex was more expensive and limited.
Another great product but probably more than you want to hook up to a Partner II is the MCK line of products. We hooked up MCK up over a wireless ISP to a cable connection and used the console phone on the remote end without any problems. Of course the quality of this particlar connect meant you wouldn't want to have more than a couple simultaneous calls but it was enough to convince customers that their T1 should be just fine for bandwidth. They have setups for several different vendors of phone switches.
O.T. There is a movie that you reminded me of when you mentioned Chillicothe, OH. It is called Chillicothe and is available from Hollywood Video for rent or from the website. It's pretty funny.
A Partner II is an older small system and wouldn't support it. G3 is a massive setup compared to this. The major difference between Key and PBX is Key has a button on the phones for all the lines and PBX just transfers to virtual slots. A PBX could potentially handle hundreds of lines where a Key system would just choke.
The poster of the article is deal with a very small system here.
I did get the mouse thing but that has been there for me for a few releases now. Just click both buttons a couple times and it works perfect for there on.
Sure there have been some rough spots with releases but more things work from the get go than other distros I've tried. Any can be made to work but Mandrake seems to be easier for me to get tweaked and running the way I want. I like being able to strip it down or have a boatload of packages on tap.
Not surprising that the update at the end of the install didn't work. All the FTP mirrors are still hitting hard so it is difficult to install the updates. Maybe they need to setup some update only mirrors with a lot of connections available.
You haven't seen a hardware failure in 4 years or are these extremely idle boxes? Surely some piece of hardware has gone south and taken the OS with it at some point. Productions boxes with "good" hardware and not running experimental software, kernel, etc. then you will see good performance with either OS. Once in a while Linux does crash in this senario but not very often but FreeBSD seems to be even less. Either option is great and both make Windows seem like a toy in the reliability department.
Some of the perceptions on FreeBSD being more reliable might come from VM issues in the past. A linux box will become very sluggish and unresponsive under high loads and ocassionally this is when they blow up. With FreeBSD you can log in and look around even under extremely high loads and it just doesn't crash. Linux's VM has closed the gap but FreeBSD still seems to be better. The reliability of ftp.cdrom.com helps the stabilty claims of FreeBSD too. It was a single CPU box that ran 100% on a 100megabit connection without ever missing a beat. It set a record for highest transfer in a 24 hour period when there was a similtaneous release of FreeBSD and RedHat of which it was mirroring both. Of course these are all things that affect perceptions and not necessarily facts.
I love both and will use either in production when given the opportunity.
If you are a little new you could just/stand/sysinstall as su and scroll through and pick what you want if you aren't sure what packages are available. A good way to see what's out there and descriptions.
Doing that with Windows 2000 brings up a bunch of links on the first page about security vulnerablities while using it over SSL. I'm sure these could be resolved but is it the best or cleanest solution?
That's why I like Ask Slashdot over the "Ask Google" answers. You get people's experiences about what works and doesn't. You also get completely different solutions presented which might not have been so obvious during a Google search.
Of course/. needs to stop posting questions that are so far out of scope. I.E. "I'm soley responsible for migrating an entire class B network to a new block in 30 days. I just passed my A+ test (boy was it hard) and was wondering what I should do next. Trust me, I know what I'm doing." There have been some very similar to that recently. Some of the discussions were interesting but most of the posters solutions wouldn't have worked on a scale much larger than a home network.
Every drive is on its own channel. Take ATA133 times 12 channels and you won't have too hard of time thinking that you can do 180MB/sec sustained. Especially since they are using hardware RAID and 64bit PCI cards. Dig a little deeper and you will see these are great products.
ATA133 drives might burst and hit 133mb/sec from time to time but sustained is more like 12-16MB/sec.
You wouldn't speed up a single drive. If you have 2 IDE drives on one cable then they are sharing ata100/133/etc. SCSI controller could give you more overall speed if you have several drives.This could be a nice solution for specific applications.
I'd prefer to buy a 12 drive 3Ware IDE RAID card and be done with it. They are now shipping Serial ATA RAID controllers. Mmmmmm!!
With X11, you're limited by the local client stability
While that is true, I find that an X session is more responsive and can use wheel mouse, etc. I really like the Xservers that use "rootless" modes. I really like using remote apps right along side windows apps.
I tend to use both X and VNC(generally tightvnc) when I'm not using a ssh terminal session. Tightvnc definitely narrowed the gap in performance. I remember the first time I used it after using standard VNC. Very nice improvement.
Do you have a calendar/planner app that can be shared and do resource management?
This product might not be for you but it definitely is a need for many people. The ability to email back and forth to coordinate in the same program is useful. Tasks can tie in too but I really don't see a lot of need for the journal in Outlook. Maybe that should be a seperate program.
Might be better than risking all his data on a alpha/beta or kludgy solution.
The story poster was stating that this is for backup purposes. Most archiving solutions are slower than what is being used in production.
Besides, most external firewire drives can't even come close to using the full bandwidth of firewire anyway. You wouldn't really be giving up that much anyway in real-world performance. You should be able to backup this 100Gb hard drive over ethernet in a couple hours.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't you read the article about the SGI system running Linux on 64 Itanium 2 processors the other day??
You could always order a Unisys ES7000 with 32 CPUs. They have 3 models. A Xeon one, an Itanium 2 one and one that can use both.
If you don't think 512 processors and 1TB ram in 4 racks is interesting then I wonder what Intel could do for you.
Most of the applications for this type of platform are completely custom or already written for these types of platforms. There is a reason the high end stuff has gone to Sun, Alpha, IBM and SGI. They have much higher scalibility without the latencies introduced by clusters of smaller Intel boxes and they are extremely matured in these areas. Commodity hardware is great but not always the right tool for the job.
I was thinking about iSync myself. If you can get it to do iCal and address book then you might have a sort-of Exchange killer here.
.mac server and put a good MTA on it and you have 90% of the functionallity most people are looking for. Could make a real nice package.
Just use your OpenBSD fake
Maybe Apple should setup OS X server for this and keep in in the family instead of waiting for it to scatter to the wind. They are missing a huge opportunity here if they sit on it.
Someone told you to use Jabber and they are right because it has already been done. Jabber servers have several plugins that allow you to do MSN, AOL, Yahoo!, IRC, Jabber and a couple other lesser known protocols. Most Jabber clients will support the major protocols and are available on numerous platforms. You can setup public or private servers so I think you already have your answer on that one.
There is a free trial that lists the backup software. You only get limited space with the free trial but you can get the software and setup your own server for backups.
Plenty of corporate firewalls are setup to shut off outbound encrypted traffic if it exceeds a certain level. My work's PIX does this and doesn't matter if you are tunneling ssh/ssl/etc. on any port, it will shut it off if you get crazy with bandwidth.
I was speaking more generally and do agree that Firewire is the better choice for most higher speed applications. I do own some Macs but none with Firewire.
Perhaps we should be talking about IEEE 1394 instead since we don't have a licensed port?? Is Apple still charging per port or did they finally drop it instead of reducing the cost?
I considered putting an extra period in my comment so the one after com could be the correct dot. It may be often forgotten but it was on my mind when I posted.
Why should facts bother a good marketing campaign?
They had pretty good steam and most people didn't know about the change anyway. Most of the ones that did had already made their mind up one way other about Sun and their products.
We should talk about F root server too. It changed from DEC to Compaq to now HP but the specs stay the same. Actually it's the same 2 node cluster of Alpha boxes and they update the manufacturer name on the webpage and nothing else. It is one of the busiest of the root servers.
This is a first release of a beta driver. They are probably still in code up to their neck to stop and worry about some trivial wording mistake. Once the drivers are getting tweaked instead of major rewrites then they can look at the little issues.
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET is considered the ultimate authority in DNS. It is also called "dot" and used to be a healthy Sun box. So they really were the "dot" in .com in a sense and that's what made it so funny. That box was replaced with an IBM box and now IBM could say they are the "dot" in .com.
Link here
Firewire is 400mbs and USB 2.0 is 480mbs. You might be thinking about USB 1.1. I still prefer Firewire for highspeed and USB for lower speed things.
Avaya's small phone switches first line or two switches to analog if you lose power. You can plug a standard phone in or some of the phones have a pass through so you can plug a single line phone into it for 911. The Partner II mentioned is such a product.
Mmm Bork Bork Bork.
Funny for Muppets but not funny for your laptop
I was going to suggest these products. I used to be the network guy at an Avaya provider and we used to use these for VOIP. It was great when you needed a couple lines, extensions, etc. remotely. Most vendor solutions are expensive and centrex was more expensive and limited.
Another great product but probably more than you want to hook up to a Partner II is the MCK line of products. We hooked up MCK up over a wireless ISP to a cable connection and used the console phone on the remote end without any problems. Of course the quality of this particlar connect meant you wouldn't want to have more than a couple simultaneous calls but it was enough to convince customers that their T1 should be just fine for bandwidth. They have setups for several different vendors of phone switches.
O.T.
There is a movie that you reminded me of when you mentioned Chillicothe, OH. It is called Chillicothe and is available from Hollywood Video for rent or from the website. It's pretty funny.
A Partner II is an older small system and wouldn't support it. G3 is a massive setup compared to this. The major difference between Key and PBX is Key has a button on the phones for all the lines and PBX just transfers to virtual slots. A PBX could potentially handle hundreds of lines where a Key system would just choke.
The poster of the article is deal with a very small system here.
Then why do 10x DVD only play 40x cdrom speeds?
I thought the ratio was 4:1.
I did get the mouse thing but that has been there for me for a few releases now. Just click both buttons a couple times and it works perfect for there on.
Sure there have been some rough spots with releases but more things work from the get go than other distros I've tried. Any can be made to work but Mandrake seems to be easier for me to get tweaked and running the way I want. I like being able to strip it down or have a boatload of packages on tap.
Not surprising that the update at the end of the install didn't work. All the FTP mirrors are still hitting hard so it is difficult to install the updates. Maybe they need to setup some update only mirrors with a lot of connections available.
You haven't seen a hardware failure in 4 years or are these extremely idle boxes? Surely some piece of hardware has gone south and taken the OS with it at some point. Productions boxes with "good" hardware and not running experimental software, kernel, etc. then you will see good performance with either OS. Once in a while Linux does crash in this senario but not very often but FreeBSD seems to be even less. Either option is great and both make Windows seem like a toy in the reliability department.
Some of the perceptions on FreeBSD being more reliable might come from VM issues in the past. A linux box will become very sluggish and unresponsive under high loads and ocassionally this is when they blow up. With FreeBSD you can log in and look around even under extremely high loads and it just doesn't crash. Linux's VM has closed the gap but FreeBSD still seems to be better. The reliability of ftp.cdrom.com helps the stabilty claims of FreeBSD too. It was a single CPU box that ran 100% on a 100megabit connection without ever missing a beat. It set a record for highest transfer in a 24 hour period when there was a similtaneous release of FreeBSD and RedHat of which it was mirroring both. Of course these are all things that affect perceptions and not necessarily facts.
I love both and will use either in production when given the opportunity.
If you are a little new you could just /stand/sysinstall as su and scroll through and pick what you want if you aren't sure what packages are available. A good way to see what's out there and descriptions.
Doing that with Windows 2000 brings up a bunch of links on the first page about security vulnerablities while using it over SSL. I'm sure these could be resolved but is it the best or cleanest solution?
/. needs to stop posting questions that are so far out of scope. I.E. "I'm soley responsible for migrating an entire class B network to a new block in 30 days. I just passed my A+ test (boy was it hard) and was wondering what I should do next. Trust me, I know what I'm doing." There have been some very similar to that recently. Some of the discussions were interesting but most of the posters solutions wouldn't have worked on a scale much larger than a home network.
That's why I like Ask Slashdot over the "Ask Google" answers. You get people's experiences about what works and doesn't. You also get completely different solutions presented which might not have been so obvious during a Google search.
Of course
Every drive is on its own channel. Take ATA133 times 12 channels and you won't have too hard of time thinking that you can do 180MB/sec sustained. Especially since they are using hardware RAID and 64bit PCI cards. Dig a little deeper and you will see these are great products.
ATA133 drives might burst and hit 133mb/sec from time to time but sustained is more like 12-16MB/sec.
You wouldn't speed up a single drive. If you have 2 IDE drives on one cable then they are sharing ata100/133/etc. SCSI controller could give you more overall speed if you have several drives.This could be a nice solution for specific applications.
I'd prefer to buy a 12 drive 3Ware IDE RAID card and be done with it. They are now shipping Serial ATA RAID controllers. Mmmmmm!!
With X11, you're limited by the local client stability
While that is true, I find that an X session is more responsive and can use wheel mouse, etc. I really like the Xservers that use "rootless" modes. I really like using remote apps right along side windows apps.
I tend to use both X and VNC(generally tightvnc) when I'm not using a ssh terminal session. Tightvnc definitely narrowed the gap in performance. I remember the first time I used it after using standard VNC. Very nice improvement.
Do you have a calendar/planner app that can be shared and do resource management?
This product might not be for you but it definitely is a need for many people. The ability to email back and forth to coordinate in the same program is useful. Tasks can tie in too but I really don't see a lot of need for the journal in Outlook. Maybe that should be a seperate program.
Might be better than risking all his data on a alpha/beta or kludgy solution.
The story poster was stating that this is for backup purposes. Most archiving solutions are slower than what is being used in production.
Besides, most external firewire drives can't even come close to using the full bandwidth of firewire anyway. You wouldn't really be giving up that much anyway in real-world performance. You should be able to backup this 100Gb hard drive over ethernet in a couple hours.