Turn your heat from 70 downto 60 degrees Fahrenheit, and you'll save *kilo*watts per year, not just a few watts.
To be pedantic, this doesn't really mean anything. You can't "save" a rate of something. It's like saying if I drive less, I will save lots of mph per year.
You can use that monitor with the iMac, that way you can have two.
I've done this. In 2006, I bought a 20" iMac to use with my 20" Dell monitor that I had been using with a PC. For a few years everything has been dandy. But now I want a new machine and the 20" Dell is still perfect, but I can't reuse the iMac.
They have $3M in cash and $3M in property, so $6.5M isn't actually over-valuing them, the market is under-valuing them if that's a 100% premium over their market cap.
I think you mean billion, but either way, you have to take into account their liabilities. $6 billion in cash and property means nothing if they have $4 billion of debt.
But from what I've seen, their server technology appears relatively weak. I.e. their blades appear less dense than 1U servers.
Not true. It's 6U for 8 blades. I just took a look at the chassis that I have access to. Now, HP c7000 is better density than this at 16 blades in 10U. But I just want to be clear, Cisco's chassis is not less dense than 1U servers.
Not everything they do is perfect, but they broke into the Fibre Channel switching business quite effectively. They can, and do, break into new markets. Servers are a logical step for them since there's a huge advantage to providing a vertical stack of networking, servers, and whatever else they can muster.
Because they are there to make a splash with ridiculous specs. Specs that wouldn't be possible without Nehalem. They're innocent looking enough (we have a few), but they are here to make an impact.
Jason Kilar, CEO of Hulu, admitted on the company's blog that the content owners demanded that Boxee stop displaying Hulu content.
Then I will have no remorse when traditional content producers die an albeit slow death. I'll continue to watch content I record with my DVR (and fast forward through commercials), I'll continue to download content via torrents (where there aren't any commercials), and I won't watch content with Hulu, where, ironically, I was willing to watch commercials.
Die, die, die. Long live TWiT, Revision3, and Wine Library TV. Just like music publishers gave into getting rid of DRM, every other industry will be forced to get rid of ridiculous restrictions or they will meet their end.
Simply put, if it takes $1000 to copy each $10 book, the DRM is effective.
Not really. DRM is never effective. The publishing industry is doing exactly what the music industry started doing years ago. The status quo medium (paper books) is inherently DRM free (as are CDs). They want the new medium (ebooks) to have DRM (just as first gen online music stores did). We see how far that got. Amazon and iTunes are now 100% DRM free for music (or at least iTunes will be very soon).
DRM does not work. It only takes one copy to render it irrelevant. It's an absurd attempt when you sell DRM free copies in the same store you're trying to sell ones with DRM.
I would love to buy a Kindle. I will not until there is a reliable source of non-DRM titles (not public domain, etc.). It will happen. It's a matter of patience.
For some people, that Solaris dom0 part is pretty important. I'm keenly aware that xVM is a brand, and would like Sun to get the bare-metal xVM server product released before the end of the decade.
You can already do the Solaris dom0.
irish@gondor:~$ uname -a SunOS gondor 5.11 snv_101b i86pc i386 i86xpv Solaris irish@gondor:~$ sudo xm list Name ID Mem VCPUs State Time(s) Domain-0 0 4680 4 r----- 152664.6 ubuntu 28 1024 2 -b---- 14249.7
How is this an "oversight"? There really is a bug. Cisco Bug ID CSCdr54230, to be exact. The bug was fixed in various code versions, but that doesn't change the fact that by Cisco's own admission it is classified as "1 - catastrophic" (in red letters, even).
Normal measures like blocking routes with an as-path length greater than n (for some reasonable value of n) stop you from passing it on to others, but if you ran an affected IOS, it would still hurt you.
Now I really don't know all that much about large-scale networking so maybe someone could explain this to me. What difference does it make if the router is rouge, versus say, green? or black?
So they announced a route that was, shall we say, malformed. Part of the problem is that due to a Cisco bug (CSCdr54230), some routers choke on it instead of ignoring it. The bug is fixed. It was fixed some time ago. Nonetheless, it's a pretty bad bug, labeled as "1 - catastrophic" by Cisco (in red letters, even). Routers still running affected code versions are having issues.
And it's only at this point in writing my reply that I realize you were taking advantage of a pun by way of misspelling. I'll leave my reply anyway;-)
If my server can be compromised, a private key can be compromised which means that any signed hash would also be compromised. It's the same effective thing.
An MD5 hash cannot verify the authenticity of a file (nor can SHA-2 or any other unkeyed hash algo). And since 2005 (when it was broken) it cannot even verify the integrity of a file.
Sure it can. Post the hash on an HTTPS server with a proper chain of trust. I'm ignoring the fact that there are md5 attacks. The prudent course of action would be to use a SHA family hash.
Speaking of CCNA, CCNP and CCISP, these certifications are not just a good idea, for some companies they are a must to even be considered.
Their value is marginal at best. I would never want to work at a place which demands the certification, because it shows they don't know what makes a good engineer.
Most people have no concept of verifying the authenticity of a file. The ones that do are able to use md5sum or openssl or some other utility in order to verify a hash.
Re:Not in "hardware business," won't sell routers
on
Google Router Rumors
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Of course it's with 64-byte packets: that's the common lingo of network hardware manufacturers. You can find similar throughput measurements on every piece of Cisco or Juniper equipment. Anyone that quotes bandwidth throughput in passing will use the 64-byte figure, since it's always the highest one.
Um. No. It's not the highest one. It's typically the lowest one. As I said before, small packets kill PC based routers.
Re:Not in "hardware business," won't sell routers
on
Google Router Rumors
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Huh? Gigabit ethernet is "hardly relevant"? What world are you living on?
The world of high performance networking. GigE is "hardly relevant" to the notion of building your own router because it's now ubiquitous. Everyone can do GigE and cheaply. There's really no money to be saved by building your own GigE router. 10 GigE is what everyone needs. If Google is building any hardware, rest assured it's for non-blocking 10 GigE port density and price.
Well, it's hard to refute a statement that uses marketing-speak like "enterprise-level pps performance". A commodity PC can achieve gigabit throughput, though
It's not marketing-speak. Poor packets per second performance is a common problem with networking gear. In actuality, it's a very normal "market-speak" thing to quote Gbps numbers without specifying packet size (like you did). Do you know the difference between being able to forward 64 byte packets at GigE and 1500 byte packets at GigE? Hint: small frames/packets can often kill commodity PC routers. So saying something "can achieve 2-3 Gbps" is meaningless if you don't specify a packet size.
And to be clear, Vyatta might very well be able to do 2-3 Gbps with 64 byte packets. Google really wouldn't care though, as 2-3 Gbps is nothing.
Google, the algorithms, runs on commodity hardware and seems to be doing fine.. They don't need 8-way HP or IBM equipment to run their code.
Because it's highly distributed. That means nothing in terms of raw network throughput required. Highly distributed systems put more of a strain on the network.
While I agree with you that front-end routers with multiple gigabit connections handling full BGP tables would probably need the performance only an ASIC can provide, I'm sure google has thousands of internal routers that perform rudimentary network separation, route failover, and maybe some packet filtering. A meticulously tuned Vyatta-esque implementation would work and be a internal build they could take ownership of.
BGP is basically a control plane function and is more dependent on CPU and memory than anything else. If there's anywhere you could put a Vyatta box, it's probably on the Internet facing connections. On Internet facing routers, you're not concerned with latency like you are for internal routers. Sure, it's nice to be low, but there's not a huge difference between 20 microseconds and 200 microseconds when the speed of light is what it is. Internally, however, if you're going through 4 or so routers (maybe distribution router -> core router -> core router -> distribution router), there's a big difference between 20 microseconds and 200 microseconds per router.
That is why you won't see x86 routers in that function. Especially since they would need many 10 GigE ports. You just can't do that on a PC. Where I work, we're struggling with Cisco because you can only get 32 non-blocking 10 GigE connections on a 6500. It's not enough anymore.
I can't believe nobody has made mention of Vyatta. It's an excellent appliance-like distro based on, I believe, Debian.
It's not mentioned because it's not even remotely relevant to the discussion.
All the bells and whistles you'd expect from a high-end device at a fraction (by which I mean ~1/3) of the cost relative to a Cisco purchase.
Including bells and whistles like custom ASICs and switching fabrics? Oh, wait, it doesn't have those. Nothing about Vyatta is "high-end." It is, however, a viable alternative at the very low-end.
Re:Not in "hardware business," won't sell routers
on
Google Router Rumors
·
· Score: 1
However, I doubt that Google uses special router hardware even for themselves. I'd bet that a Google router platform would be based on a commodity PC with a few PCI Express gigabit ethernet adapters, installed with open-source routing software. Google likely has no interest in supporting the billion weird or legacy options that are present in the Juniper and Cisco products, so it's able to make a commodity unit that is a tenth the cost.
No, not possible. GigE is hardly relevant anymore. Even so, you can't get enterprise-level packets per second performance on commodity PC hardware.
GigE kit is cheap enough to not do it yourself. 10GigE kit is not quite as cheap yet. Rolling your own 10GigE is a lot more plausible--but it would have little to do with commodity PC hardware and a lot to do with either custom ASICs or merchant silicon.
Slashdot Mirror
Turn your heat from 70 downto 60 degrees Fahrenheit, and you'll save *kilo*watts per year, not just a few watts.
To be pedantic, this doesn't really mean anything. You can't "save" a rate of something. It's like saying if I drive less, I will save lots of mph per year.
Perhaps you mean kilowatt-hours, or Joules.
information is not energy,
Not so fast...
...is MP3FS, a virtual file system that transcodes your FLAC files to MP3 on the fly (including metadata).
Thank you for the link. This seems like a sane solution to an annoying problem.
Mp3 is a format and flac will convert and encode audio. Why are you executing them?
It doesn't sound like he is. He's saying playing "from" and copying "from." This implies that these are directories.
You can use that monitor with the iMac, that way you can have two.
I've done this. In 2006, I bought a 20" iMac to use with my 20" Dell monitor that I had been using with a PC. For a few years everything has been dandy. But now I want a new machine and the 20" Dell is still perfect, but I can't reuse the iMac.
Kinda annoying.
it is important to know whether the TRIM command work through a RAID controller and actually reach the SSD
Not really. Stop using hardware RAID. It's dangerous, expensive, and not necessary.
The best thing you can do is use ZFS. It even optimizes for SSDs.
They have $3M in cash and $3M in property, so $6.5M isn't actually over-valuing them, the market is under-valuing them if that's a 100% premium over their market cap.
I think you mean billion, but either way, you have to take into account their liabilities. $6 billion in cash and property means nothing if they have $4 billion of debt.
But from what I've seen, their server technology appears relatively weak. I.e. their blades appear less dense than 1U servers.
Not true. It's 6U for 8 blades. I just took a look at the chassis that I have access to. Now, HP c7000 is better density than this at 16 blades in 10U. But I just want to be clear, Cisco's chassis is not less dense than 1U servers.
They suck at everything else.
Not everything they do is perfect, but they broke into the Fibre Channel switching business quite effectively. They can, and do, break into new markets. Servers are a logical step for them since there's a huge advantage to providing a vertical stack of networking, servers, and whatever else they can muster.
I have to ask : why Nehalem EP Xeons?
Because they are there to make a splash with ridiculous specs. Specs that wouldn't be possible without Nehalem. They're innocent looking enough (we have a few), but they are here to make an impact.
Jason Kilar, CEO of Hulu, admitted on the company's blog that the content owners demanded that Boxee stop displaying Hulu content.
Then I will have no remorse when traditional content producers die an albeit slow death. I'll continue to watch content I record with my DVR (and fast forward through commercials), I'll continue to download content via torrents (where there aren't any commercials), and I won't watch content with Hulu, where, ironically, I was willing to watch commercials.
Die, die, die. Long live TWiT, Revision3, and Wine Library TV. Just like music publishers gave into getting rid of DRM, every other industry will be forced to get rid of ridiculous restrictions or they will meet their end.
Simply put, if it takes $1000 to copy each $10 book, the DRM is effective.
Not really. DRM is never effective. The publishing industry is doing exactly what the music industry started doing years ago. The status quo medium (paper books) is inherently DRM free (as are CDs). They want the new medium (ebooks) to have DRM (just as first gen online music stores did). We see how far that got. Amazon and iTunes are now 100% DRM free for music (or at least iTunes will be very soon).
DRM does not work. It only takes one copy to render it irrelevant. It's an absurd attempt when you sell DRM free copies in the same store you're trying to sell ones with DRM.
I would love to buy a Kindle. I will not until there is a reliable source of non-DRM titles (not public domain, etc.). It will happen. It's a matter of patience.
Also, CYA - export your email files, now, to a USB stick/CD/whatever and take that offsite.
Don't do this. It's probably against company policy as email is generally considered property of the firm.
Since you work in tech, you probably don't have a union. They could've helped with this.
The only people unions help are ones who on their own can't keep a job.
For some people, that Solaris dom0 part is pretty important. I'm keenly aware that xVM is a brand, and would like Sun to get the bare-metal xVM server product released before the end of the decade.
You can already do the Solaris dom0.
The Cisco 'bug' is an oversight
How is this an "oversight"? There really is a bug. Cisco Bug ID CSCdr54230, to be exact. The bug was fixed in various code versions, but that doesn't change the fact that by Cisco's own admission it is classified as "1 - catastrophic" (in red letters, even).
Normal measures like blocking routes with an as-path length greater than n (for some reasonable value of n) stop you from passing it on to others, but if you ran an affected IOS, it would still hurt you.
Now I really don't know all that much about large-scale networking so maybe someone could explain this to me. What difference does it make if the router is rouge, versus say, green? or black?
So they announced a route that was, shall we say, malformed. Part of the problem is that due to a Cisco bug (CSCdr54230), some routers choke on it instead of ignoring it. The bug is fixed. It was fixed some time ago. Nonetheless, it's a pretty bad bug, labeled as "1 - catastrophic" by Cisco (in red letters, even). Routers still running affected code versions are having issues.
And it's only at this point in writing my reply that I realize you were taking advantage of a pun by way of misspelling. I'll leave my reply anyway ;-)
If my server can be compromised, a private key can be compromised which means that any signed hash would also be compromised. It's the same effective thing.
An MD5 hash cannot verify the authenticity of a file (nor can SHA-2 or any other unkeyed hash algo). And since 2005 (when it was broken) it cannot even verify the integrity of a file.
Sure it can. Post the hash on an HTTPS server with a proper chain of trust. I'm ignoring the fact that there are md5 attacks. The prudent course of action would be to use a SHA family hash.
Speaking of CCNA, CCNP and CCISP, these certifications are not just a good idea, for some companies they are a must to even be considered.
Their value is marginal at best. I would never want to work at a place which demands the certification, because it shows they don't know what makes a good engineer.
Most people have no concept of verifying the authenticity of a file. The ones that do are able to use md5sum or openssl or some other utility in order to verify a hash.
Of course it's with 64-byte packets: that's the common lingo of network hardware manufacturers. You can find similar throughput measurements on every piece of Cisco or Juniper equipment. Anyone that quotes bandwidth throughput in passing will use the 64-byte figure, since it's always the highest one.
Um. No. It's not the highest one. It's typically the lowest one. As I said before, small packets kill PC based routers.
Vyatt'a own paper shows it.
Huh? Gigabit ethernet is "hardly relevant"? What world are you living on?
The world of high performance networking. GigE is "hardly relevant" to the notion of building your own router because it's now ubiquitous. Everyone can do GigE and cheaply. There's really no money to be saved by building your own GigE router. 10 GigE is what everyone needs. If Google is building any hardware, rest assured it's for non-blocking 10 GigE port density and price.
Well, it's hard to refute a statement that uses marketing-speak like "enterprise-level pps performance". A commodity PC can achieve gigabit throughput, though
It's not marketing-speak. Poor packets per second performance is a common problem with networking gear. In actuality, it's a very normal "market-speak" thing to quote Gbps numbers without specifying packet size (like you did). Do you know the difference between being able to forward 64 byte packets at GigE and 1500 byte packets at GigE? Hint: small frames/packets can often kill commodity PC routers. So saying something "can achieve 2-3 Gbps" is meaningless if you don't specify a packet size.
And to be clear, Vyatta might very well be able to do 2-3 Gbps with 64 byte packets. Google really wouldn't care though, as 2-3 Gbps is nothing.
Google, the algorithms, runs on commodity hardware and seems to be doing fine.. They don't need 8-way HP or IBM equipment to run their code.
Because it's highly distributed. That means nothing in terms of raw network throughput required. Highly distributed systems put more of a strain on the network.
While I agree with you that front-end routers with multiple gigabit connections handling full BGP tables would probably need the performance only an ASIC can provide, I'm sure google has thousands of internal routers that perform rudimentary network separation, route failover, and maybe some packet filtering. A meticulously tuned Vyatta-esque implementation would work and be a internal build they could take ownership of.
BGP is basically a control plane function and is more dependent on CPU and memory than anything else. If there's anywhere you could put a Vyatta box, it's probably on the Internet facing connections. On Internet facing routers, you're not concerned with latency like you are for internal routers. Sure, it's nice to be low, but there's not a huge difference between 20 microseconds and 200 microseconds when the speed of light is what it is. Internally, however, if you're going through 4 or so routers (maybe distribution router -> core router -> core router -> distribution router), there's a big difference between 20 microseconds and 200 microseconds per router.
That is why you won't see x86 routers in that function. Especially since they would need many 10 GigE ports. You just can't do that on a PC. Where I work, we're struggling with Cisco because you can only get 32 non-blocking 10 GigE connections on a 6500. It's not enough anymore.
I can't believe nobody has made mention of Vyatta. It's an excellent appliance-like distro based on, I believe, Debian.
It's not mentioned because it's not even remotely relevant to the discussion.
All the bells and whistles you'd expect from a high-end device at a fraction (by which I mean ~1/3) of the cost relative to a Cisco purchase.
Including bells and whistles like custom ASICs and switching fabrics? Oh, wait, it doesn't have those. Nothing about Vyatta is "high-end." It is, however, a viable alternative at the very low-end.
However, I doubt that Google uses special router hardware even for themselves. I'd bet that a Google router platform would be based on a commodity PC with a few PCI Express gigabit ethernet adapters, installed with open-source routing software. Google likely has no interest in supporting the billion weird or legacy options that are present in the Juniper and Cisco products, so it's able to make a commodity unit that is a tenth the cost.
No, not possible. GigE is hardly relevant anymore. Even so, you can't get enterprise-level packets per second performance on commodity PC hardware.
GigE kit is cheap enough to not do it yourself. 10GigE kit is not quite as cheap yet. Rolling your own 10GigE is a lot more plausible--but it would have little to do with commodity PC hardware and a lot to do with either custom ASICs or merchant silicon.