Similarly... I normally wait a few weeks before installing a new dot-even release, as the release is likely to be followed by a quick string of quick fix patches.
... My curiosity, this time however, is too much, and I'm off to upgrade:-)
and again assuming traffic stops doubling every year.
Traffic doubles as the cost of off-the-shelf technology gets less. For you to be able to apply this you have to assume that the rate of technology advance in the network will outstrip that of data storage.
I think this is unlikely as moving traffic around inherently requires somewhere to store it at the rate that it is being transmitted.
If it can cope now for £20mln a year it should be able to cope in seven years for the same amount.
*sigh*
no one seems to listen... is it possible.... very possible...
I know not everyone is connected, but those of us who are (especially on DSL/cable)
DSL... hmmm that's why it's taking BT so long to process my order, they're still waiting for the tape library to arrive at the local telephone exchange:-)
Do it with a cluster of Netapps an Sun Tape Libraries...
easy peasy. How many telephone exchanges do you think we have in our green and pleasant land?
Let me guess: you still use a 10Mb hard disk?
Sorry.... but look at my specs. I know you're only talking about Usenet, but I think my figures are pretty sound. Break the problem up to individual telephone exchanges and it's quite possible. 27.645 terabits world wide (for a 10billion population of which British would count for 0.6% of (1.6 terabits for Britain) divided by 250 telephone exchanges = 6.4 Gigabits. Hmmm - seems perfectly possible to me.
Firstly: Not Everyone is connected. I would divide your estimate by a quarter.
Secondly: With regard to downloads etc.. They only have to record the data you pulled off the web once, and then just store pointers to that data for each access across the population.
Thirdly:
Voice recognition can record conversations with much higher compression than storing the analogue sound.
Fourthly, whichever of the above you discount here are the number of tapes needed daily, nationwide:
16000 Terabytes = 6.26 terabytes a day = 90 DLT tapes a day
8000 Terabytes = 3.13 terabytes a day = 45 DLT tapes a day
4000 Terabytes = 1.57 terabytes a day = 23 DLT tapes a day
2000 Terabytes = 783 gigabytes a day = 12 DLT tapes a day
1000 Terabytes = 391 gigabytes a day = 6 DLT tapes a day
These are nationwide figures... Spaced out across multiple telephone exchanges, these are small daily numbers.
You do realise that we pay through the nose for telephone calls over here already?
Thinking about the cost per megabyte and past proposals for an "Information Tax"... I wouldn't say that it's all that far fetched...
300Gigs is a small disk array in business terms.
Here's product sheet on a 6-Terabyte Filer well within the capacity of being bought by the Government and being installed in every local telephone exchange.
Data communications can be compressed up and stored on these, analogue (voice) calls could be parsed through voice recognition systems and also compressed. Hell, when they run out of space they'll start dumping the old stuff to tape. (Ahem... Sun's 11-Terabyte solution). If these types of solutions are available commercially just think what the governments of the developed world will have available to them. The two products I just speced out would fit in a rather small datacentre.
Put this configuration in each telephone exchange and keeping records of all calls is just a matter of buying the tapes!!!
On another note, we're not, in general, as concerned with privacy here in the UK as much as you guys are in the US. We've had thousands of Closed Circuit cameras installed throughout our streets since the '80s (What with IRA bombing campaigns etc...) and for many people, especially women, it has instilled security for the general public as opposed to fear. Are we mis-guided? I'm not saying that I agree that my telephone conversations can be recorded, but if they're just going to be archived to tape then it doesn't bother me extremely. Hell, I would think that they are just as likely to protect me as they might incriminate me.
We've implemented a Wireless link with Encryption to connect multiple sites. I have to say that I'm impressed with the performance.
To join the network you have to be a registered device on that network.
To eavesdrop you have to break the encryption key.
The alternative to wireless was to implement a fibre link, but it seems to me that it would be easier for someone to dig into the ground and plant a device on the fibre much easier than attempting to break the encryption keys on a wireless link.
Note this:
With our wireless link there are a fair few checksum errors on packets, resulting in the odd retry request from the other node. I presume that these errors would not be known unless you knew the encryption keys, making it almost impossible to crack the keys as you cannot tell where the errors are without first knowing the keys. Has anyone done any research in random (deliberate) corruption to encrypted traffic in order to prevent key-cracking? Obviously this would come at a performance cost (extra re-transmit packets), but I guess this is to be expected for higher security.
I'm sure anyone with enough spare time could probably break the keys, but probably not before we changed them.
Slashdot Mirror
most distributions seem to want to install about 6 or more editors, 4 browsers, 5 window managers
errr... that's because you click "Newbie: Full Install"
Similarly... I normally wait a few weeks before installing a new dot-even release, as the release is likely to be followed by a quick string of quick fix patches.
:-)
... My curiosity, this time however, is too much, and I'm off to upgrade
Just imagine what ten million Linux users will be doing all weekend.
Attempting to Download, Attempting to Compile & Install a new Linux kernel.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!
Moderators: Don't even think about it!
ummm. and download that 18Mb file first...
you got to be kidding.
Thanks to the other poster for the modutils tip. I've taken 2.3.23
Can I just take a 2.2 kernel based recent distribution, grab the prerelease source slap it in /usr/src/linux and recompile?
Or are there issues like we had from 1.2 --> 2.0?
I believe governments are able to purchase source licenses for Microsoft Operating Systems.
That small US government probably can't afford it though!
Hmmm - But Xi Technologies is not ATI.
A third party is providing the "driver".
Also, although I'm not sure, I expect Xi technologies actually provide the X server for the card and not the driver, but I may be wrong here.
oh get a life!
Are you looking over your shoulder every minute of the day?
Are you subversive?
Are you going to blow up the houses of parliament?
I tick "None of the above" for all those, seriously.
Hello?
Shoot yourself in the foot, why don't you?
If you can't take bad press don't play the game, but don't stop others from playing it.
Perhaps,
But then they could change it after you had accepted..
Perhaps if they require you to print it out.
How many different EULAs have we seen, for what is essentially the same product.
How many companies have distributed software with a higher build id, where the software was the same intrinsicaly, but the EULA had changed?
I have to admit, when showing junior techs how to do installs for some software. I often make the dry joke:
"Here is where you sign your life away, just scroll down and click "I accept""
and again assuming traffic stops doubling every year.
Traffic doubles as the cost of off-the-shelf technology gets less. For you to be able to apply this you have to assume that the rate of technology advance in the network will outstrip that of data storage.
I think this is unlikely as moving traffic around inherently requires somewhere to store it at the rate that it is being transmitted.
If it can cope now for £20mln a year it should be able to cope in seven years for the same amount.
*sigh*
no one seems to listen... is it possible.... very possible...
Can I ask that you put forward daily figures... putting forward figures for 7 years is pretty misleading.
We got to around 0.1bln UKSterling over seven years... or say 20mln a year...
£20,000,000 a year
Hey, perhaps I'm rich, but that doesn't look to me to be a hell of a lot of money... The National Lottery could pay for it, let alone the government.
*Sigh*
No one seems to listen.
It is possible....
very possible...
From your own statistics
That is NOT JUST USENET....
*sigh* no one seems to listen....
it is possible.... very possible.
Ummm...
You did read the stuff about archiving it off to tape, didn't you? Hell - I wouldn't keep that stuff on on-line storage for long.
I wouldn't buy more filers as backup devices...
Oh - before you ask how you backup data that's constantly changing research the Snap**** technologies that the filer provides.
*Sigh*
No one seems to listen, it's possible, very possible.
I know not everyone is connected, but those of us who are (especially on DSL/cable)
:-)
DSL... hmmm that's why it's taking BT so long to process my order, they're still waiting for the tape library to arrive at the local telephone exchange
And recording telephone calls will not deter violent crimes?
That's why there's no light coming through my bedroom window anymore!!!
255.5 Terabytes... nationwide?
Do it with a cluster of Netapps an Sun Tape Libraries...
easy peasy. How many telephone exchanges do you think we have in our green and pleasant land?
Let me guess: you still use a 10Mb hard disk?
Sorry.... but look at my specs. I know you're only talking about Usenet, but I think my figures are pretty sound. Break the problem up to individual telephone exchanges and it's quite possible. 27.645 terabits world wide (for a 10billion population of which British would count for 0.6% of (1.6 terabits for Britain) divided by 250 telephone exchanges = 6.4 Gigabits. Hmmm - seems perfectly possible to me.
people living in Cornwall
we have people living in Cornwall? I thought they were apes.
Well:
Firstly: Not Everyone is connected. I would divide your estimate by a quarter.
Secondly: With regard to downloads etc.. They only have to record the data you pulled off the web once, and then just store pointers to that data for each access across the population.
Thirdly:
Voice recognition can record conversations with much higher compression than storing the analogue sound.
Fourthly, whichever of the above you discount here are the number of tapes needed daily, nationwide:
16000 Terabytes = 6.26 terabytes a day = 90 DLT tapes a day
8000 Terabytes = 3.13 terabytes a day = 45 DLT tapes a day
4000 Terabytes = 1.57 terabytes a day = 23 DLT tapes a day
2000 Terabytes = 783 gigabytes a day = 12 DLT tapes a day
1000 Terabytes = 391 gigabytes a day = 6 DLT tapes a day
These are nationwide figures... Spaced out across multiple telephone exchanges, these are small daily numbers.
You do realise that we pay through the nose for telephone calls over here already?
Thinking about the cost per megabyte and past proposals for an "Information Tax"... I wouldn't say that it's all that far fetched...
300Gigs is a small disk array in business terms.
Here's product sheet on a 6-Terabyte Filer well within the capacity of being bought by the Government and being installed in every local telephone exchange.
Data communications can be compressed up and stored on these, analogue (voice) calls could be parsed through voice recognition systems and also compressed. Hell, when they run out of space they'll start dumping the old stuff to tape. (Ahem... Sun's 11-Terabyte solution). If these types of solutions are available commercially just think what the governments of the developed world will have available to them. The two products I just speced out would fit in a rather small datacentre.
Put this configuration in each telephone exchange and keeping records of all calls is just a matter of buying the tapes!!!
On another note, we're not, in general, as concerned with privacy here in the UK as much as you guys are in the US. We've had thousands of Closed Circuit cameras installed throughout our streets since the '80s (What with IRA bombing campaigns etc...) and for many people, especially women, it has instilled security for the general public as opposed to fear. Are we mis-guided? I'm not saying that I agree that my telephone conversations can be recorded, but if they're just going to be archived to tape then it doesn't bother me extremely. Hell, I would think that they are just as likely to protect me as they might incriminate me.
GC
We've implemented a Wireless link with Encryption to connect multiple sites. I have to say that I'm impressed with the performance.
To join the network you have to be a registered device on that network.
To eavesdrop you have to break the encryption key.
The alternative to wireless was to implement a fibre link, but it seems to me that it would be easier for someone to dig into the ground and plant a device on the fibre much easier than attempting to break the encryption keys on a wireless link.
Note this:
With our wireless link there are a fair few checksum errors on packets, resulting in the odd retry request from the other node. I presume that these errors would not be known unless you knew the encryption keys, making it almost impossible to crack the keys as you cannot tell where the errors are without first knowing the keys. Has anyone done any research in random (deliberate) corruption to encrypted traffic in order to prevent key-cracking? Obviously this would come at a performance cost (extra re-transmit packets), but I guess this is to be expected for higher security.
I'm sure anyone with enough spare time could probably break the keys, but probably not before we changed them.
Thanks!
That actually explains it. I've never been on a UNIX course, but have spent ten years working with UNIX type operating systems.
Mod him up.