That's because the application asked the filesystem to truncate the old file before it wrote the new file. The system crashed after the filesystem truncated the old file and before it wrote the new file.
To really use ZFS's transaction stuff requires that the application developer do special-case magic to hook into the transaction code (and developers think a cross-platform, cross-filesystem fsync call is hard?). Otherwise...
Each TXG is 5 sec long (in normal cases unless some operation forcefully closed it). So, it is quite possible that the 2 syscalls can end up in the same TXG. But, is not guaranteed.
http://markmail.org/message/lbbgxu4huzczwh6g So, if your "truncate this file" ended up in transaction 1 and your "write this data" ended up in transaction 2, and the system crashes and rolls back transaction 2, you've still got an empty file.
change their applications because a new version of the file system breaks their stuff is madness
Their applications were already broken, committing everything every 5 seconds* regardless of what the applications had wanted was the workaround in ext3, but I guess it's only madness when street-makers demand that you drive with round wheels, not when you demand that street-makers accommodate your square ones.
* Unless you increased the commit time to reduce power usage (eg laptop_mode)
I personally think it should be perfectly OK to read and write hundreds of tiny files. Even thousands.
It is perfectly OK to read and write thousands of tiny files. Unless the system is going to crash while you're doing it and you somehow want the magic computer fairy to make sure that the files are still there when you reboot it. In that case, you're going to have to always write every single block out to the disk, and slow everything else down to make sure no process gets an "unreasonable" expectation that their is safe until the drive catches up.
Fortunately his patches will include an option to turn the magic computer fairy off.
If I go onto a Disney children's forum and post nothing but swear words, and Disney deletes it, is that censorship too?
It's their right to do so, but this does not make it "not censorship", whether they remove the post entirely, *** over the swear words, or replace them with gumdrops and candy canes.
Censorship is done by people who censor, and has nothing to do with government at all. The only connection it has to government is the prevailing belief that it's "bad" when government does it and "ok" when anyone else does it.
That's the key part, I'm sure many people here remember back when windows would "start up" and pretend to be usable, but the start menu would randomly snap shut as programs and services continued to load in the background, and actually getting a program you wanted to use to start meant watching the hourglass for several minutes as windows finished getting ready.
They do. State law gives them 120 days advance notice, which brings us to
Since when does he have the right to pick and choose which laws he enforces?
That was the law he was enforcing, since the banks weren't giving the advance notice. When the banks agreed to do it right, he agreed to resume evictions.
I hope that my friend's case is cited as an example of how "important" censoring happens almost immediately.
Important "censoring" would happen almost immediately, but for some reason people look at you funny if you ask for the keywords that identify child prostitute ads so you can report them. It seems that censorship is a double-edged sword.
The hilarious part is demanding the $100k back he spent investigating prostitution complaints. Obviously if Craigslist didn't exist, he wouldn't have spent the $100k because he'd be ignorant of the prostitution going on.
He said some renters were paying their rent on time and weren't receiving proper notice of the evictions.
He also said mortgage companies routinely failed to do something they were supposed to: identify a building's occupants before asking for an eviction.
...
Banks must prove that they informed tenants of a 120-day grace period, which state law grants to allow tenants to find new housing before moving out.
source. Not that the con talking heads bothered to mention any of these trifling little legal issues back when they proclaimed that this was some kind of activism and socialism and satanism and whatever else they could throw at it.
The bank must follow the law, and the law states the residents of a non-owner occupied property must be notified in advance, which the poor, poor banks just couldn't be bothered to do.
They were apparently too busy licking the boots of the fed chairman for cash to think "Hmm... renter in good standing making monthly payments, owner in bad standing not making monthly payments. Maybe we should offer them the house in exchange for them continuing to pay. The worst that could happen is they say no and move out." But that would require working for their money and if there's anything we've learned in this crash, its that the leadership of our institutions are deathly afraid of work and deserve money to fall upon them from the federal government.
Unless you have to pay for the research, please keep in mind that in future submissions, you can have more than one link in the body of your submission. Even if it's just <a href="...">More details here</a>
The site does not say "firefox may not be secure" they're saying "firefox poses a security risk". One of them is a statement of fact that they do nothing to back up, the other one is an opinion which may or may not be valid, but is theirs to hold.
I wonder if what they meant was "our site looks like crap in firefox so please don't use it". Or maybe by "poses a security risk" they mean "the secret fields we spent hours figuring out how to hide behind other stuff refuses to stay hidden in firefox, so using it is a risk to OUR security".
So when emergency call is held up because WOW released the latest patch and everyone in my neighborhood is downloading will you still feel the same way?
I hope you're using the ISP's own VoIP offering to make that call, it'd be terrible if something happened to your emergency call via Vonage.
Splitting it up or letting it recombine changes jack shit, really, except for the massive amounts of money changing hands when SBC bought the AT&T name and the other companies. Each company became a monopoly over whatever part of the country it serviced.
The previous ruling forcing Ma Bell to let people own their own telephones, and later laws requiring the local monopolies to allow competition (the creation of CLECs) did far, far more for competition than the breakup ever did.
Of course not, because things that were unregulated were not banks.
GMAC wasn't a "bank" and wasn't regulated as such (until it scrambled and clawed its way to bankhood out of sheer desperation). Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were not "banks"... until they really really wanted to be.
Fannie and Freddie purchased the subprime loans from other lenders
They may have purchased some, but nowhere near close to a significant amount of them. Otherwise we wouldn't be having people calling for the creation of a "bad bank", they would BE the bad bank.
Honestly, I agree in principle, but I'm also honestly surprised the previous place even called you in for an interview if they thought it was such a big issue it was worth commenting about.
is the use of things like printf to construct a query line.
That's just dumb. If you're going to go through the trouble of getting everything in just the right order for printf to fill in those %s placeholders, what the heck are you doing using printf?
I can understand $sql="SELECT * FROM foo WHERE day<='$maxdate'"; because then at least you have the excuse of adding on a if ($mindate) { $sql.=" AND day>='$mindate'"; } which back in the bad old days of using "?" as placeholders in a prepared query would have been impossible without turning your execute call into a candidate for the dailywtf of the year.
Slashdot Mirror
or rolls back in case of a crash
Data loss!!1!1!
(even their content before the write).
That's because the application asked the filesystem to truncate the old file before it wrote the new file. The system crashed after the filesystem truncated the old file and before it wrote the new file.
To really use ZFS's transaction stuff requires that the application developer do special-case magic to hook into the transaction code (and developers think a cross-platform, cross-filesystem fsync call is hard?). Otherwise...
http://markmail.org/message/lbbgxu4huzczwh6g
So, if your "truncate this file" ended up in transaction 1 and your "write this data" ended up in transaction 2, and the system crashes and rolls back transaction 2, you've still got an empty file.
change their applications because a new version of the file system breaks their stuff is madness
Their applications were already broken, committing everything every 5 seconds* regardless of what the applications had wanted was the workaround in ext3, but I guess it's only madness when street-makers demand that you drive with round wheels, not when you demand that street-makers accommodate your square ones.
* Unless you increased the commit time to reduce power usage (eg laptop_mode)
I personally think it should be perfectly OK to read and write hundreds of tiny files. Even thousands.
It is perfectly OK to read and write thousands of tiny files. Unless the system is going to crash while you're doing it and you somehow want the magic computer fairy to make sure that the files are still there when you reboot it. In that case, you're going to have to always write every single block out to the disk, and slow everything else down to make sure no process gets an "unreasonable" expectation that their is safe until the drive catches up.
Fortunately his patches will include an option to turn the magic computer fairy off.
So in other words, it's required in every system older than 5 years, and an error in any system newer?
If I go onto a Disney children's forum and post nothing but swear words, and Disney deletes it, is that censorship too?
It's their right to do so, but this does not make it "not censorship", whether they remove the post entirely, *** over the swear words, or replace them with gumdrops and candy canes.
"Censorship" is done by governments
Censorship is done by people who censor, and has nothing to do with government at all. The only connection it has to government is the prevailing belief that it's "bad" when government does it and "ok" when anyone else does it.
to a useable state.
That's the key part, I'm sure many people here remember back when windows would "start up" and pretend to be usable, but the start menu would randomly snap shut as programs and services continued to load in the background, and actually getting a program you wanted to use to start meant watching the hourglass for several minutes as windows finished getting ready.
this concern would never arise
If you actually knew HTML, and didn't just play with frontpage until the secret input with the server password disappeared behind the logo.
Seems only fair.
Let us know when we get secret blacklists of employers so that we can badmouth them without risk of reprisal, and we'll call it even.
they should get some form of protection
They do. State law gives them 120 days advance notice, which brings us to
Since when does he have the right to pick and choose which laws he enforces?
That was the law he was enforcing, since the banks weren't giving the advance notice. When the banks agreed to do it right, he agreed to resume evictions.
Does the law say that?
"they informed tenants of a 120-day grace period, which state law grants"
I'd assume so.
I hope that my friend's case is cited as an example of how "important" censoring happens almost immediately.
Important "censoring" would happen almost immediately, but for some reason people look at you funny if you ask for the keywords that identify child prostitute ads so you can report them. It seems that censorship is a double-edged sword.
The hilarious part is demanding the $100k back he spent investigating prostitution complaints. Obviously if Craigslist didn't exist, he wouldn't have spent the $100k because he'd be ignorant of the prostitution going on.
source. Not that the con talking heads bothered to mention any of these trifling little legal issues back when they proclaimed that this was some kind of activism and socialism and satanism and whatever else they could throw at it.
The bank must follow the law, and the law states the residents of a non-owner occupied property must be notified in advance, which the poor, poor banks just couldn't be bothered to do.
They were apparently too busy licking the boots of the fed chairman for cash to think "Hmm... renter in good standing making monthly payments, owner in bad standing not making monthly payments. Maybe we should offer them the house in exchange for them continuing to pay. The worst that could happen is they say no and move out." But that would require working for their money and if there's anything we've learned in this crash, its that the leadership of our institutions are deathly afraid of work and deserve money to fall upon them from the federal government.
Unless you have to pay for the research, please keep in mind that in future submissions, you can have more than one link in the body of your submission. Even if it's just <a href="...">More details here</a>
The site does not say "firefox may not be secure" they're saying "firefox poses a security risk". One of them is a statement of fact that they do nothing to back up, the other one is an opinion which may or may not be valid, but is theirs to hold.
I wonder if what they meant was "our site looks like crap in firefox so please don't use it". Or maybe by "poses a security risk" they mean "the secret fields we spent hours figuring out how to hide behind other stuff refuses to stay hidden in firefox, so using it is a risk to OUR security".
I'm despairing, all right.
So when emergency call is held up because WOW released the latest patch and everyone in my neighborhood is downloading will you still feel the same way?
I hope you're using the ISP's own VoIP offering to make that call, it'd be terrible if something happened to your emergency call via Vonage.
Splitting it up or letting it recombine changes jack shit, really, except for the massive amounts of money changing hands when SBC bought the AT&T name and the other companies. Each company became a monopoly over whatever part of the country it serviced.
The previous ruling forcing Ma Bell to let people own their own telephones, and later laws requiring the local monopolies to allow competition (the creation of CLECs) did far, far more for competition than the breakup ever did.
There's NO such thing as an unregulated bank.
Of course not, because things that were unregulated were not banks.
GMAC wasn't a "bank" and wasn't regulated as such (until it scrambled and clawed its way to bankhood out of sheer desperation). Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were not "banks"... until they really really wanted to be.
Fannie and Freddie purchased the subprime loans from other lenders
They may have purchased some, but nowhere near close to a significant amount of them. Otherwise we wouldn't be having people calling for the creation of a "bad bank", they would BE the bad bank.
Honestly, I agree in principle, but I'm also honestly surprised the previous place even called you in for an interview if they thought it was such a big issue it was worth commenting about.
2) doing so meant that they had trouble filling their positions with qualified applicants.
"Gee boss, our new screening standards have thrown out all of our qualified applicants."
"Get me the President! We need more H1Bs! there are no qualified employees in America!"
Potential employer "We saw some bad stuff about you on the Internet...
... so we threw your resume in the trash and you don't get a rebuttal."
Fixed that for you.
is the use of things like printf to construct a query line.
That's just dumb. If you're going to go through the trouble of getting everything in just the right order for printf to fill in those %s placeholders, what the heck are you doing using printf?
I can understand
$sql="SELECT * FROM foo WHERE day<='$maxdate'";
because then at least you have the excuse of adding on a
if ($mindate) { $sql.=" AND day>='$mindate'"; }
which back in the bad old days of using "?" as placeholders in a prepared query would have been impossible without turning your execute call into a candidate for the dailywtf of the year.