...from their philosophical ivory tower. The web is dominated by Linux, if they really 'cared' about the web, they would be contributing instead of building a parallel universe that's used by less than ? percent?
"The criminals flew the drones at high speed over the heads of FBI agents to drive them away while also shooting video that they then uploaded to YouTube as a way to alert other nearby criminal members about law enforcement's location."
That's criminals for you - All criming together in spontaneous coordinated multi-felony attacks. It's for real. You need to watch a this segment from a 80's crime documentary, then think about what would have happened with drones AND encryption! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt33ElBL5nI
Imagine a metro crippled for days by a car to car worm. Or, how about an entire city's autonomous automobile population commanded to layer 1 DDoS a business... "This drive thru line is ridiculous."
Luckily, the peer to peer signaling code will be secure. Especially if the industry rolls their own protocol from scratch. Phew!
...it's just a new way to save money on support and service when printers stop printing or blow toner all over the place. "Look at this mess! The first page greys out and then there are only a few faint lines for the next 30 pages!" "Nothing wrong with the printer. That information is simply redacted."
I second that. The coffee is smooth and the time savings is unbeatable. At the drop of a hat you can nuke up a good cup of coffee, which is good because I may need another cup at the drop of a hat to keep from collapsing unconscious into my keyboard.
Until you have worked with thin clients you don't know what you are missing. We have over 500 employees spread over the country in offices and a centrally located, 3 person IT help desk. (I think they spend at least 75% of their time on laptop or other non-terminal issues.) You ship out a router, a switch, a printer, and some Wyse Blazers, and that is it.
PROS * The base models (like Wyse Blazer) are still quite cheap, and for the average worker, just fine. * Huge security win. Reduces many threats and reduces the tempatation for users to do foolish things. "I like using the local Starbucks WiFi for Internet access..." * No more users installing junk and breaking things. (Users don't like it at first, but most things are web based now anyway. Not a big loss.) * No more crashed drives and messed up PC registries. * We can roll out an app without installing anything on PCs. * The user gets the same experience everywhere. * We can provide a remote desktop over the Internet; same experience. Eliminates the whole issue of GoToMyPC, etc. * No more local backup issues or other local file problems. * No more worm infected PC hell. (Or PC security patch/AV updating hell) * No more local desktop support needs, shipping PCs back and forth, etc.
CONS * Network quality and performance become more crucial. (Our typical WAN link is only 256Kbps and fine for a small office.) * You need a terminal server farm. (Not that huge a cost considering current PC server strength.) * CAD/CAM, graphics work, etc. still need local PCs. * Desktop video becomes much harder. * Some apps don't work or have huge screen update needs. (Core Office, web apps, etc. are generally just fine.) * Vendor lockin for thin client software. * If the network goes down, they are 100% dead in the water instead of 99% dead in the water. I guess with a PC they could edit a local Word doc or something, maybe play some solitire. (Ok, they would like to have their address book. I think that is the major complaint.)
It depends on the organization. Many places have already centralized data centers moved a lot of systems to web apps. Things really are all moving onto the web. Do you want to support a PC just to run a web browser?
Here is an excerpt from an email notification you will get after using the Verisign absentee system in 2004:
"Valued Voter,
At VeriSign we care deeply about freedom, democracy, and your right to privacy. Due to this fact, we are informing you of a change to our privacy policy. Line 428 which formerly read:
"Verisign will in no circumstances share your personal or voting information with 3rd parties."
now reads:
"In some cases, Verisign may share personal and voting information on customers with Verisign partners. This is standard business practice, and will lead to a more enjoyable voting experience for our users. In addition, it represents Verisign's commitment to capitalism, which is the sole foundation the United States was built upon. God Bless these United States, fellow patriot."
While most users will enjoy the benefits of this sharing (like customized Donkey or Elephant themes on parter sites, or voting record targeted product
newsletters), some may wish to opt out. If you wish to opt out, please send your request to: U.S. Department Of Justice c.o. Sec. John Ashcroft950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Please look out for infromation on new MyDemocracyBuilder features in the coming months, including our exciting new "AutoVote" system!
In my life, I have made two life damaging mistakes: 1) First computer language: Commodore Basic 2) First band who's songs I learned to play on guitar: Metallica
Both of these decisions have doomed me, making lousy coding/playing habits second nature. With effort, I have overcome both, but the spectors still haunt me from time to time, and I know these abominations have prevented me from meeting my ultimate potential. (That being mediocity, in both coding and guitar playing:)
This may be an arcane reference, but I think this idea was tried already a long time ago. As the story goes, workers once banded together to force employers to improve working conditions, pay, etc. As the story goes, these groups called themselves "unions".
Of course, in the tech industry, where we are all "professionals" and get "salaries" and have "careers", we are above such plebeian things as unions, a day's wage for a day's work, any sort of job security, or any action that would bring into question our undying and unflinching support of whatever corporate entity we are employed by.
Stand up! Companies treat employees as badly as the employees put up with. One bit of advise: don't just walk out without warning. Get together as a group and talk with management. Be up front about the problems and what would fix them. Don't threaten to walk out, just use your collective voice to give them a chance to fix things. Then if things don't improve, walk. I say this because I once worked for a small company with a CEO that was a real piece of work. All 15 or so employees got together and met with the board, not threatening to walk, but deadly serious. A month or so later, he was gone. If one or two managers are the real problem, organize and go above them. Don't be petty or complain about "style" or "personality". Instead, provide a clear list of issues and how they hurt productivity and morale, and what can be done to fix them. If it works, you won't have to walk. If it doesn't, walk quickly. You will have given them the chance to save themselves a heap of expense and trouble.
Please excuse the ranting, but as someone with a family and a life, I have been disgusted by all the corporate boot-licking and cowardice I have seen. Big salaries and perks during the boom distracted people from seeing that they we being used. If you work 80 hour weeks, you are doing the work of two for the price of one. Who is the sucker?
I am glad to see another emerging IT "area" in which all the tools and consultants can be replaced by a set of simple Perl scripts. (pod2man, pod2html, etc.)
You can pick up a nice magnesium shell ToughBook for cheap, if you are willing to put up with some sloth. They would make an excellent war driving box! Here is one source: (I am not affiliated, and I have never ordered from them)
TelePro PC Store
1) NetBSD's net/radius port has built in s/key support from MN.net.
2) OpenBSD 3.0 has BSD auth support for SKEY and tokens. I am not sure if the livingston-radius or cistron-radius ports use BSD auth or try to dig stuff out of the password files themselves.
which leads to:
3) You could use the Net::Radius Perl module and either the Authen::OPIE module, or a bit of C code to interface with the SKEY or OPIE libraries on the system.
Use SSL client certificates. Each user should be issued one, as well as a random password. So, you get browser-server authentication and user-server authentication. An outside cert authority should be able to help you create them. Though, depending on the number of possible users, I would suggest looking into using OpenSSL to set up your own certificate authority. Since clients would need to load up thier client certificate, adding the extra steps to have them accept your CA as valid would not add to the complexity much. I consider running your own CA more secure than using an outside source for most applications, but the extra work may not be worth it to you.
As I recall "SSLVerifyClient 2" in httpd.conf for Apache+SSL forces clients to send a valid client X.509 cert before being allowed access. "SSLVerifyClient require" is the directive for Mod_SSL.
Think of how many millions more buffer overflow exploits would exist if CGI was mostly done in C/C++? It is hard enough to get systems and server coders to behave and not write unchecked strings into fixed length buffers. Imagine how hard it would be to get less gear headed individuals to do so. The last thing the web needs is a thousand more gaping holes in CGI scripts.
Exactly. There really should be a body of professional jurors, who understand the law as well as thier own areas of study. The idiocy of some of the jurys they come up with these days is stifling. You see these geniouses interviewed on TV, and they will actually admit to ignoring judicial directives, to having thier mind made up from the start, or of convincting someone even when they had more than reasonable doubt.
The bottom line is that both defence attorneys and procecutors love a stupid jury. If they only had a well informed body of jurors to select from, they would be stuck actually trying the case on its merits instead of turning it into a circus.
Of course, with a professional jury there are seperate issues: How do you become one? How is thier integrity ensured? How can they be kept from harm inflicted by the losing party? How can you make certain that they are not acting upon thier own agenda? But, most of these issues still exist with the "random" selection we have today. The most important thing would be to make sure that juries were neither elected (justice is not an issue of popular opinion), nor chosen by an impartial or wrongly motivated group, nor chosen by and for a particular geographic location. A body of judges, lawyers, and perhaps some sort of third entity could assure that jurors were selected based on intellect, understanding of the law, and objectivity.
If it would work, you would see a lot less cases of "Man aquited because he is a pretty-boy" or "Woman sentenced to death for stealing remote control from husband".
I don't know why I feel compelled to add to this, but perhaps someone will use it to compute a histogram of Geek music likes/dislikes, so I must add
GodFlesh - Industrial Hip Hop Death Metal (Check out Pure and Songs of Love and Hate) Laibach -- Industrial/epic covers of the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and Jesus Christ Superstar (thier best work, IMO) Radiohead -- Unfortunatly grouped into pop, but well worth listening to. (Especially OK Computer, which features vocals done by computer speech synth that sounds like the speech synth that used to come with SoundBlasters.) Willie Nelson -- Though at first skeptical, I really enjoy his latest (Teatro). It is a bluesy and dark album. Not county. La Floa Maldita -- A Frech darkwave band. Hard to accurately describe, and great. Of course there are always The Pixies, Frank Black, Ministry, Aphex Twin, Prodigy, Clock DVA (the hacker!), the Cure, and lots of other stuff. There, I will regret this post later, but hopefully it will lead to at least one person having at least one more enjoyable listening experiene.
Did you listen to the same interview as I did? He is the only candidate to give direct and thoughtful answers to every meaningful question I have heard asked of him. He admits his mistakes, and bases his acts on convictions and logic rather than popular polling. He is the diametrical opposite of the Bush/Gore collective, and most importantly, he is a honorable man in a system where there are few.
If you want someone to do something about the rampant pollitcal corruption, vote for McCain. If you want someone to keep the internet (and country) free of idiotic laws that protect law enforcement and steal our rights, vote McCain. If you want a president who doesn't change oppinion based on wind velocity, and doesn't ignore his concious just to get votes, vote for McCain.
On the other hand, if you want to have dauntingly idiotic laws imposed on your freedom, vote for the Bush/Gore collective. (It doesn't matter which one, as they are the same.)
I am sorry to rant about this, but I urge all of you to take a look at McCain. You won't agree with all his views (I know I don't), but that is not the point. He possesses the two qualities that have been missing in the Oval Office for many years: Hardened Integrity, and a sence of constitutional duty. (IE, he is not out just to be popular, and he doesn;t view the constitution as an annoying obstacle.)
Now I must stop before my enthusiasm gets the best of me. (Yes, real enthusiasm for a Presidential candidiate. I haven;t felt that in a LONG time.)
There is one beginning, and one end. With multiple platters, the disk doesn't write one platter until it is full, then go on to the next. It writes in parallel. That, plus higher media densities, plus higher rotational speeds == faster disks.
Put your swap on the lowest numbered cylenders that you can if you want the fastest swap. I have yet to hear of a modern drive whose cylenders are not marked starting from the outside of the disk working into the center. There are two reasons the outside of the disk is faster.
1. Rotational Speed -- More media passes the heads in one rotaion on the outside tracks. The media density is constant accross each platter, so the amount of disk real estate passing under the heads at any position is relative to the heads' distance crom the center of the spindle. If you think of each track as a line, then the length of each track is 2 * the_distance_from_center * PI. All this means the disk's maximum throughput is realized when readin/writing to the outermost tracks.
2. Relative position -- It is obvious that the majority of the data on the disk resides near the outside edge of the disk. Also it is obvious that an equal sized partition will will take up more physical cylenders if it is positioned toward the center of the disk. More physical cylenders = more average distance for the heads to travel when seeking from one block to another when reading/writing non-contiguous blocks. This means that the lowest average seek times for a given partition will be realized if that partion is located at the outer edge of the disk.
If you think that position doesn't make a difference, I have bonnie (a disk benchmarking program) data to back my words up. On some drives, the difference can be huge. That is why the Mindcraft benchmark, where they had both OSes on the same drives, was such a joke as far as disk IO was concerned. Can you guess which OS was on the outside of the disks (first cylenders)? (I'll give you a hint, it is not the OS that allows you to put its / partition at any location on the disk. Another hint, the OS's name starts with an 'N')
Two more things that others have said, and I would like to reiterate and add to. Put swap on multiple disks, even if there is a disparity in disk speed from one to another, and even if you only want 32MB of swap. And SET THE SWAP PRIORITIES TO AN EQUAL NUMBER BETWEEN SWAP PARTITIONS ON SEPERATE DRIVES! Some folks seem to think Linux does RAID0 for swap automaticly, but it does not. You must set the priorities or swap will be written in a serialized manner. (i.e. -- Filling up one partition before starting to fill the next.)
And finally, no matter how much RAM you have, have at least a little swap. Why? Every inactive process Linux swaps out makes more room for disk cache and buffers. On a box with 512MB that you are using as a workstation, 32MB of swap is probably fine. Linux has a real memory management system, don't tie its hands by not giving at least a little swap.
They already are using Beowulfs fairly heavily, but they don't have to for the most part. We already gave them a huge bunch of Supercomputing power. Clinton has been so easy on China over the years that it is obvious who's pocket he is in. They are the biggest threat to this country and the world, and we are feeding thier economy and thier war machine just because we are only seeing green. Do you think a medium sized African country would have most favored nation trading status if they treated thier people like China does, or if they so blatantly were building up weapons of mass destruction? I think not. Anyway, Beowulf or T3E, they are not putting supercomputers into warheads. Anyone notice that there is a ban on nuclear testing? They need the computational might to do the same things our nuke geeks need it for: Simulation.
Slashdot Mirror
...from their philosophical ivory tower. The web is dominated by Linux, if they really 'cared' about the web, they would be contributing instead of building a parallel universe that's used by less than ? percent?
Cool argument, bro!
"The criminals flew the drones at high speed over the heads of FBI agents to drive them away while also shooting video that they then uploaded to YouTube as a way to alert other nearby criminal members about law enforcement's location."
That's criminals for you - All criming together in spontaneous coordinated multi-felony attacks. It's for real. You need to watch a this segment from a 80's crime documentary, then think about what would have happened with drones AND encryption! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt33ElBL5nI
Imagine a metro crippled for days by a car to car worm. Or, how about an entire city's autonomous automobile population commanded to layer 1 DDoS a business... "This drive thru line is ridiculous."
Luckily, the peer to peer signaling code will be secure. Especially if the industry rolls their own protocol from scratch. Phew!
...it's just a new way to save money on support and service when printers stop printing or blow toner all over the place. "Look at this mess! The first page greys out and then there are only a few faint lines for the next 30 pages!" "Nothing wrong with the printer. That information is simply redacted."
Who wants to deal with stupid grendlers? Let's just skip to 3.
I second that. The coffee is smooth and the time savings is unbeatable. At the drop of a hat you can nuke up a good cup of coffee, which is good because I may need another cup at the drop of a hat to keep from collapsing unconscious into my keyboard.
Until you have worked with thin clients you don't know what you are missing. We have over 500 employees spread over the country in offices and a centrally located, 3 person IT help desk. (I think they spend at least 75% of their time on laptop or other non-terminal issues.) You ship out a router, a switch, a printer, and some Wyse Blazers, and that is it.
PROS
* The base models (like Wyse Blazer) are still quite cheap, and for the average worker, just fine.
* Huge security win. Reduces many threats and reduces the tempatation for users to do foolish things. "I like using the local Starbucks WiFi for Internet access..."
* No more users installing junk and breaking things. (Users don't like it at first, but most things are web based now anyway. Not a big loss.)
* No more crashed drives and messed up PC registries.
* We can roll out an app without installing anything on PCs.
* The user gets the same experience everywhere.
* We can provide a remote desktop over the Internet; same experience. Eliminates the whole issue of GoToMyPC, etc.
* No more local backup issues or other local file problems.
* No more worm infected PC hell. (Or PC security patch/AV updating hell)
* No more local desktop support needs, shipping PCs back and forth, etc.
CONS
* Network quality and performance become more crucial. (Our typical WAN link is only 256Kbps and fine for a small office.)
* You need a terminal server farm. (Not that huge a cost considering current PC server strength.)
* CAD/CAM, graphics work, etc. still need local PCs.
* Desktop video becomes much harder.
* Some apps don't work or have huge screen update needs. (Core Office, web apps, etc. are generally just fine.)
* Vendor lockin for thin client software.
* If the network goes down, they are 100% dead in the water instead of 99% dead in the water. I guess with a PC they could edit a local Word doc or something, maybe play some solitire. (Ok, they would like to have their address book. I think that is the major complaint.)
It depends on the organization. Many places have already centralized data centers moved a lot of systems to web apps. Things really are all moving onto the web. Do you want to support a PC just to run a web browser?
Here is an excerpt from an email notification you will get after using the Verisign absentee system in 2004: "Valued Voter, At VeriSign we care deeply about freedom, democracy, and your right to privacy. Due to this fact, we are informing you of a change to our privacy policy. Line 428 which formerly read:
"Verisign will in no circumstances share your personal or voting information with 3rd parties."
now reads:
"In some cases, Verisign may share personal and voting information on customers with Verisign partners. This is standard business practice, and will lead to a more enjoyable voting experience for our users. In addition, it represents Verisign's commitment to capitalism, which is the sole foundation the United States was built upon. God Bless these United States, fellow patriot."
While most users will enjoy the benefits of this sharing (like customized Donkey or Elephant themes on parter sites, or voting record targeted product newsletters), some may wish to opt out. If you wish to opt out, please send your request to:
U.S. Department Of Justice
c.o. Sec. John Ashcroft950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Please look out for infromation on new MyDemocracyBuilder features in the coming months, including our exciting new "AutoVote" system!
Sincerely,
Verisign Support "
Statistical spam filters will pick it up without a problem.
In my life, I have made two life damaging mistakes:
:)
1) First computer language: Commodore Basic
2) First band who's songs I learned to play on guitar: Metallica
Both of these decisions have doomed me, making lousy coding/playing habits second nature. With effort, I have overcome both, but the spectors still haunt me from time to time, and I know these abominations have prevented me from meeting my ultimate potential. (That being mediocity, in both coding and guitar playing
This may be an arcane reference, but I think this idea was tried already a long time ago. As the story goes, workers once banded together to force employers to improve working conditions, pay, etc. As the story goes, these groups called themselves "unions".
Of course, in the tech industry, where we are all "professionals" and get "salaries" and have "careers", we are above such plebeian things as unions, a day's wage for a day's work, any sort of job security, or any action that would bring into question our undying and unflinching support of whatever corporate entity we are employed by.
Stand up! Companies treat employees as badly as the employees put up with. One bit of advise: don't just walk out without warning. Get together as a group and talk with management. Be up front about the problems and what would fix them. Don't threaten to walk out, just use your collective voice to give them a chance to fix things. Then if things don't improve, walk. I say this because I once worked for a small company with a CEO that was a real piece of work. All 15 or so employees got together and met with the board, not threatening to walk, but deadly serious. A month or so later, he was gone. If one or two managers are the real problem, organize and go above them. Don't be petty or complain about "style" or "personality". Instead, provide a clear list of issues and how they hurt productivity and morale, and what can be done to fix them. If it works, you won't have to walk. If it doesn't, walk quickly. You will have given them the chance to save themselves a heap of expense and trouble.
Please excuse the ranting, but as someone with a family and a life, I have been disgusted by all the corporate boot-licking and cowardice I have seen. Big salaries and perks during the boom distracted people from seeing that they we being used. If you work 80 hour weeks, you are doing the work of two for the price of one. Who is the sucker?
I am glad to see another emerging IT "area" in which all the tools and consultants can be replaced by a set of simple Perl scripts.
(pod2man, pod2html, etc.)
You can pick up a nice magnesium shell ToughBook for cheap, if you are willing to put up with some sloth. They would make an excellent war driving box! Here is one source: (I am not affiliated, and I have never ordered from them)
TelePro PC Store
Wasn't there an episode of Miami Vice where some unsavory group was going to take out a Concorde with a Stinger?
A few options for SKEY:
1) NetBSD's net/radius port has built in s/key support from MN.net.
2) OpenBSD 3.0 has BSD auth support for SKEY and tokens. I am not sure if the livingston-radius or cistron-radius ports use BSD auth or try to dig stuff out of the password files themselves.
which leads to:
3) You could use the Net::Radius Perl module and either the Authen::OPIE module, or a bit of C code to interface with the SKEY or OPIE libraries on the system.
I have not done any of these things. Have fun!
-Paul
Use SSL client certificates. Each user should be issued one, as well as a random password. So, you get browser-server authentication and user-server authentication. An outside cert authority should be able to help you create them. Though, depending on the number of possible users, I would suggest looking into using OpenSSL to set up your own certificate authority. Since clients would need to load up thier client certificate, adding the extra steps to have them accept your CA as valid would not add to the complexity much. I consider running your own CA more secure than using an outside source for most applications, but the extra work may not be worth it to you.
As I recall "SSLVerifyClient 2" in httpd.conf for Apache+SSL forces clients to send a valid client X.509 cert before being allowed access. "SSLVerifyClient require" is the directive for Mod_SSL.
-Paul
Think of how many millions more buffer overflow exploits would exist if CGI was mostly done in C/C++? It is hard enough to get systems and server coders to behave and not write unchecked strings into fixed length buffers. Imagine how hard it would be to get less gear headed individuals to do so. The last thing the web needs is a thousand more gaping holes in CGI scripts.
-Paul
Exactly. There really should be a body of professional jurors, who understand the law as well as thier own areas of study. The idiocy of some of the jurys they come up with these days is stifling. You see these geniouses interviewed on TV, and they will actually admit to ignoring judicial directives, to having thier mind made up from the start, or of convincting someone even when they had more than reasonable doubt.
The bottom line is that both defence attorneys and procecutors love a stupid jury. If they only had a well informed body of jurors to select from, they would be stuck actually trying the case on its merits instead of turning it into a circus.
Of course, with a professional jury there are seperate issues: How do you become one? How is thier integrity ensured? How can they be kept from harm inflicted by the losing party? How can you make certain that they are not acting upon thier own agenda? But, most of these issues still exist with the "random" selection we have today. The most important thing would be to make sure that juries were neither elected (justice is not an issue of popular opinion), nor chosen by an impartial or wrongly motivated group, nor chosen by and for a particular geographic location. A body of judges, lawyers, and perhaps some sort of third entity could assure that jurors were selected based on intellect, understanding of the law, and objectivity.
If it would work, you would see a lot less cases of "Man aquited because he is a pretty-boy" or "Woman sentenced to death for stealing remote control from husband".
-Paul
I don't know why I feel compelled to add to this, but perhaps someone will use it to compute a histogram of Geek music likes/dislikes, so I must add
GodFlesh - Industrial Hip Hop Death Metal (Check out Pure and Songs of Love and Hate)
Laibach -- Industrial/epic covers of the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and Jesus Christ Superstar (thier best work, IMO)
Radiohead -- Unfortunatly grouped into pop, but well worth listening to. (Especially OK Computer, which features vocals done by computer speech synth that sounds like the speech synth that used to come with SoundBlasters.)
Willie Nelson -- Though at first skeptical, I really enjoy his latest (Teatro). It is a bluesy and dark album. Not county.
La Floa Maldita -- A Frech darkwave band. Hard to accurately describe, and great.
Of course there are always The Pixies, Frank Black, Ministry, Aphex Twin, Prodigy, Clock DVA (the hacker!), the Cure, and lots of other stuff.
There, I will regret this post later, but hopefully it will lead to at least one person having at least one more enjoyable listening experiene.
!WARNING -- RANT!
Did you listen to the same interview as I did?
He is the only candidate to give direct and
thoughtful answers to every meaningful question I
have heard asked of him. He admits his mistakes,
and bases his acts on convictions and logic rather
than popular polling. He is the diametrical
opposite of the Bush/Gore collective, and most
importantly, he is a honorable man in a system
where there are few.
If you want someone to do something about the
rampant pollitcal corruption, vote for McCain. If
you want someone to keep the internet (and
country) free of idiotic laws that protect law
enforcement and steal our rights, vote McCain.
If you want a president who doesn't change
oppinion based on wind velocity, and doesn't
ignore his concious just to get votes, vote for
McCain.
On the other hand, if you want to have dauntingly
idiotic laws imposed on your freedom, vote for the
Bush/Gore collective. (It doesn't matter which
one, as they are the same.)
I am sorry to rant about this, but I urge all of
you to take a look at McCain.
You won't agree with all his views (I know I
don't), but that is not the point. He possesses
the two qualities that have been missing in the
Oval Office for many years: Hardened Integrity,
and a sence of constitutional duty. (IE, he is
not out just to be popular, and he doesn;t view
the constitution as an annoying obstacle.)
Now I must stop before my enthusiasm gets the best
of me. (Yes, real enthusiasm for a Presidential
candidiate. I haven;t felt that in a LONG time.)
There is one beginning, and one end. With multiple platters, the disk doesn't write one platter until it is full, then go on to the next.
It writes in parallel. That, plus higher media densities, plus higher rotational speeds == faster disks.
Put your swap on the lowest numbered cylenders that you can if you want the fastest swap. I have yet to hear of a modern drive whose cylenders are not marked starting from the outside of the disk working into the center. There are two reasons the outside of the disk is faster.
1. Rotational Speed -- More media passes the heads in one rotaion on the outside tracks. The media density is constant accross each platter, so the amount of disk real estate passing under the heads at any position is relative to the heads' distance crom the center of the spindle. If you think of each track as a line, then the length of each track is 2 * the_distance_from_center * PI.
All this means the disk's maximum throughput is realized when readin/writing to the outermost tracks.
2. Relative position -- It is obvious that the majority of the data on the disk resides near the outside edge of the disk. Also it is obvious that an equal sized partition will will take up more physical cylenders if it is positioned toward the center of the disk. More physical cylenders = more average distance for the heads to travel when seeking from one block to another when reading/writing non-contiguous blocks.
This means that the lowest average seek times for a given partition will be realized if that partion is located at the outer edge of the disk.
If you think that position doesn't make a difference, I have bonnie (a disk benchmarking program) data to back my words up. On some drives, the difference can be huge. That is why the Mindcraft benchmark, where they had both OSes on the same drives, was such a joke as far as disk IO was concerned. Can you guess which OS was on the outside of the disks (first cylenders)? (I'll give you a hint, it is not the OS that allows you to put its / partition at any location on the disk. Another hint, the OS's name starts with an 'N')
Two more things that others have said, and I would like to reiterate and add to. Put swap on multiple disks, even if there is a disparity in disk speed from one to another, and even if you only want 32MB of swap. And SET THE SWAP PRIORITIES TO AN EQUAL NUMBER BETWEEN SWAP PARTITIONS ON SEPERATE DRIVES! Some folks seem to think Linux does RAID0 for swap automaticly, but it does not. You must set the priorities or swap will be written in a serialized manner. (i.e. -- Filling up one partition before starting to fill the next.)
And finally, no matter how much RAM you have, have at least a little swap. Why? Every inactive process Linux swaps out makes more room for disk cache and buffers. On a box with 512MB that you are using as a workstation, 32MB of swap is probably fine. Linux has a real memory management system, don't tie its hands by not giving at least a little swap.
And that is my sermon for the day.
-Paul
They already are using Beowulfs fairly heavily, but they don't have to for the most part. We already gave them a huge bunch of Supercomputing power. Clinton has been so easy on China over the years that it is obvious who's pocket he is in. They are the biggest threat to this country and the world, and we are feeding thier economy and thier war machine just because we are only seeing green. Do you think a medium sized African country would have most favored nation trading status if they treated thier people like China does, or if they so blatantly were building up weapons of mass destruction? I think not. Anyway, Beowulf or T3E, they are not putting supercomputers into warheads. Anyone notice that there is a ban on nuclear testing? They need the computational might to do the same things our nuke geeks need it for: Simulation.