That's why you should be careful running an enterprise file system on consumer-grade drive.
this is not about drives, it's about filesystems and the promises that they make. if you sync your data to the disk, it is still there even if the power goes off. If you don't sync your data, who knows. The point is that filesystems ARE transactional. If you get back success from the sync operation, your data is there, period.
WRONG, ask RedHat about their filesystem promises. You can most certainly let the power go out mid-operation and expect data integrity when you power back up again. If the power goes out mid-operation, you discard the operation in progress when the power went down. Everything else is intact. This is guaranteed behavior on any modern operating system. Every modern database expects this behavior from the operating system.
If someone updates a file in place, do you really want to create a new version for every write call?
This is precisely how VMS does it, it works great. You can control how many generations it keeps. You can manually delete older versions if you want. You can explicitly refer to the older versions in the path if you want. If, for instance, you are creating a database file, you can disable the versioning.
Wow, mainstream 1970s technology is just way too advanced for this crowd.
The only power the SCOTUS should have is to determine if a law violates the Constitution. If it does, it should be struck down, if it doesn't, it should stand.
so today the supreme court ruled that the 14th amendment is actually correct. what is your problem?
The federal government didn't create or conceive it and therefore it should be a matter of the people to figure that out. (states rights)
14th amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
is your reading comprehension poor? can you read what this says? do you see the part about "any law"? do you see the part about "nor shall any state deprive any person"? just wondering...
One constitutional amendment I've seen proposed before, and after this week I now believe that it is the most important one ever, would allow a majority of states to overturn supreme court decisions by passing legislation within a set window.
so in your world wyoming + montana has more say in the matter than california! wow!
Yes, i do believe the state (and moreso the states constituents) should be allowed, at their discretion to make any type of marriage illegal. If the state doesn't have that discretion then you are ok with the massive federal government doing so? It is very clear that the federal government overstepped here..
Maybe you should try reading the 14th amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So tell us more about how you don't believe in the constitution and what it says
One constitutional amendment I've seen proposed before, and after this week I now believe that it is the most important one ever, would allow a majority of states to overturn supreme court decisions by passing legislation within a set window.
will your head explode when it's ruled unconstitional?
Slavery is expressly addressed in the Constitution in the 13th Amendment. The definition of marriage is not. It is not a federal issue as the federal government does not issue marriage licenses - the states do.
Perhaps you missed the 14th amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
so tell us more about how the federal government can't regulate marriage laws. the constitution says it can regulate ANY state law.
"Usaamah Abdullah Rahim, the terrorism suspect who was killed by police in Boston, abandoned a plot to behead the organizer of a controversial "Draw Muhammad" competition in favor of killing police officers, law enforcement sources told NBC News on Wednesday. "
what "sociailized medicine" are we talking about here? The vast majority of americans are still buying private hospital insurance and using private medical facilities.
Time to un-ask the question - instead: Why do we let the government write these social contracts in the first place? The only roll the government should be to adjudicate the contracts in case of a conflict. People should write their own contracts.
Yes that is exactly what is happening here. The government is no longer allowed to step in and stop two people from signing a marriage contract based on their sex.
If "get the government out of the business of regulating contracts" is your goal then you should be celebrating today's ruling.
we supposed to both protect same sex marriage AND protect the freedom of religion and the ability to practice and act upon our beliefs without being sued?
Jesus in the gospel tells his followers to "turn the other cheek" and "look to the log in your own eye" and "pray in private" so what part of your blessed religion is being infringed upon here???
Slashdot Mirror
what is to know?
transaction: I say to the filesystem, "please store my data" The filesystem says "ok your data is stored" this is a transaction.
filesystem: a database that holds its data in files and uses pathnames as indexes
database: a way to store data
database file: storing a database in a database
That's why you should be careful running an enterprise file system on consumer-grade drive.
this is not about drives, it's about filesystems and the promises that they make. if you sync your data to the disk, it is still there even if the power goes off. If you don't sync your data, who knows. The point is that filesystems ARE transactional. If you get back success from the sync operation, your data is there, period.
just don't let the power go out mid operation
WRONG, ask RedHat about their filesystem promises. You can most certainly let the power go out mid-operation and expect data integrity when you power back up again. If the power goes out mid-operation, you discard the operation in progress when the power went down. Everything else is intact. This is guaranteed behavior on any modern operating system. Every modern database expects this behavior from the operating system.
RTFA:
" I just want a simple file share"
Filesystem interfaces are not transactional
if that were true then you could not use a filesystem to safely store a database file
If someone updates a file in place, do you really want to create a new version for every write call?
This is precisely how VMS does it, it works great. You can control how many generations it keeps. You can manually delete older versions if you want. You can explicitly refer to the older versions in the path if you want. If, for instance, you are creating a database file, you can disable the versioning.
Wow, mainstream 1970s technology is just way too advanced for this crowd.
use VMS, it's built in
TOPS-20 had it too
yearning already for the lost technology of the 1970s
The only power the SCOTUS should have is to determine if a law violates the Constitution. If it does, it should be struck down, if it doesn't, it should stand.
so today the supreme court ruled that the 14th amendment is actually correct. what is your problem?
The federal government didn't create or conceive it and therefore it should be a matter of the people to figure that out. (states rights)
14th amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
is your reading comprehension poor? can you read what this says? do you see the part about "any law"? do you see the part about "nor shall any state deprive any person"? just wondering...
One constitutional amendment I've seen proposed before, and after this week I now believe that it is the most important one ever, would allow a majority of states to overturn supreme court decisions by passing legislation within a set window.
so in your world wyoming + montana has more say in the matter than california! wow!
Yes, i do believe the state (and moreso the states constituents) should be allowed, at their discretion to make any type of marriage illegal. If the state doesn't have that discretion then you are ok with the massive federal government doing so? It is very clear that the federal government overstepped here..
Maybe you should try reading the 14th amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So tell us more about how you don't believe in the constitution and what it says
I now believe that it is the most important one ever
if "lord of the flies" is your philosophy, then sure
One constitutional amendment I've seen proposed before, and after this week I now believe that it is the most important one ever, would allow a majority of states to overturn supreme court decisions by passing legislation within a set window.
will your head explode when it's ruled unconstitional?
so that means we are really british citizens
tell us more about your universe where two wrongs make a right
Slavery is expressly addressed in the Constitution in the 13th Amendment. The definition of marriage is not. It is not a federal issue as the federal government does not issue marriage licenses - the states do.
Perhaps you missed the 14th amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
so tell us more about how the federal government can't regulate marriage laws. the constitution says it can regulate ANY state law.
I am not sure that I follow - define religious extremists. What person that you have heard of ever say they want to behead infidels??
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/usaamah-rahim-killed-boston-police-was-plotting-behead-activist-sources-n369436
"Usaamah Abdullah Rahim, the terrorism suspect who was killed by police in Boston, abandoned a plot to behead the organizer of a controversial "Draw Muhammad" competition in favor of killing police officers, law enforcement sources told NBC News on Wednesday. "
Exodus 21:2
"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.
maybe you should lead the campaign to allow polygamists to marry and see how far you get with that
it is clear that people of faith and their beliefs should not be hindered in the public square.
Exactly, if religious extremists want to use our public squares to behead the infidels, we should not be allowed to stop them
First it was socialized medicine...
what "sociailized medicine" are we talking about here? The vast majority of americans are still buying private hospital insurance and using private medical facilities.
Time to un-ask the question - instead: Why do we let the government write these social contracts in the first place? The only roll the government should be to adjudicate the contracts in case of a conflict. People should write their own contracts.
Yes that is exactly what is happening here. The government is no longer allowed to step in and stop two people from signing a marriage contract based on their sex.
If "get the government out of the business of regulating contracts" is your goal then you should be celebrating today's ruling.
you're just yet another hopeless narcissist who flails when reading something that isn't about them and their precious life
we supposed to both protect same sex marriage AND protect the freedom of religion and the ability to practice and act upon our beliefs without being sued?
Jesus in the gospel tells his followers to "turn the other cheek" and "look to the log in your own eye" and "pray in private" so what part of your blessed religion is being infringed upon here???
yes that is right. you have to marry people before you can have a conversation with them. you read it correctly.