The premium for servers (lack of) performance is not that great, for a given level of technology. Proper configuration is much more important. Also - what are the "conditions". A few years go -- we needed to improve out SQL servers. I installed and tested multiple configurations (including top of the line processors). The single biggest improvement - was the size of the RAID cache (and this was on process intensive code, not data intensive). The number of processors, the speed of the processor -- all of these had little impact. But using systems with significant RAID cache.. and one with a larger (larges available at the time) even when put on systems with slow speed -- out performed even the fastest CPU's (again.. keep in mind this was process intensive). I've found over the years that many people don't understand what they are testing. The jump to and make false claims with investigating the story behind the story.
As the systems I use become - outdated, I'm looking to replace the PEx950 systems. The point of my post was that for many years they have been reliable workhorses. I don't expect that anyone would run out and purchase "new" PE x950 systems. Besides, I don't believe they will support the "new" 6 + core cpu's. If they wanted Dell, and if they wanted a new 1U server, the R620 would be a better selection.
Degrading the topic only slightly more: o As the PE1950 was available from 1.6 to 3.0 GHZ (in single or dual cpu... with dual or quad core); stating "it went faster" has no meaning. If you were to post some system stats -- & CPU speeds. o You don't indicate if your application(s) were single or multi-threaded enabled. o The initial release (system I) date for the PE x950 is not the same as the latest release date (system III).
Also, having older can be better: the software has had a chance to stabilize out, any (both software and hardware) issues can be researched BEFORE you buy it - the buyer is not just depended on the seller glossy advertisement. A system that is "significantly" faster - isn't any faster if it isn't running (or running properly).
I use server class systems for most of / as my desktops - especially for development. I remote to them where necessary. After having a significant number of hard drive and power supply failures, the server class systems have lasted significantly longer. (My preference leans to the PE1950 & PE2950 - I can get them in dual CPU quad core @ 3GHZ speed). In over two years - with 6 systems running (most of them continually) I've had two hard drive failures - both RAID 1 (no loss of data/downtime) and not power supply failures (yet). By placing most of them in a remote location in house -- the fan noise is tolerable. I'm starting to convert some of the systems to VM's (But conversion to VM's is not as easy as the companies would imply).
I would also like to know: How many other companies have a similar problem with their laptops? Is this a "dirty secret" of the industry?
... and in case you were wondering: Actuator drift occurs when a valve is out of null, resulting in a piston moving slowly or drifting when there is no control signal (e.g. when the electrical power is off).
Yeah, I agree. My management asked me after one incident how we could truly lock down one of our systems. I sent them a picture of a power strip with all the cords unplugged. They weren't amused..
Ah... should have sent them a picture of a generator!
The truth is any system with users is never 100% secure, but that's not a popular answer.
Yes, agreed. BUT they can be a lot more secure than what is going on right now.
We don't have the authority to say "This is dangerous and violates acceptable practice" without getting fired.
Irony: I was fired for refusing to use using live customer data (and reported the practice to upper management). I advised that customer data (test) might be mixed with customer data (live).. and was over-ruled -- the development team said that it could never happen. Just before I was fired, customers were calling and complaining - their (on-line) bills were not right - development had mixed the data connections - and the customers were looking at the "test" database. About six months later - the company was being investigated by the state AG.
Actually... I believe there is a right answer: Currently (as noted) management prefers to cut costs - without considering or being held responsible for the consequences. When "my" (personal) information is leaked over the internet, who pays? ME. Solution: crack down on such incidents - the person responsible for holding the information. In short: Improve security. WHEN it happens, pay the person who's information is leaked for potential damages from the company that holds the information -- and allow the door to be further open for (more) actual damages. In short: Put management’s feet to the fire. Wake up to the reality of the so-called savings. If you can't "secure" your data or equipment, you disconnect it from the internet. Pull the (internet) plug - a hacker can't gain access to and download terabytes of data from a physically isolated system.
I read this type of issue time after time.
Why are such critical systems connected to the internet... and further why are they (these critical systems) allowed to see "foreign" websites?
Start with this story: Why is there critical systems allowed to be in the same network as email? They should be physically separated - and never see the light of the www, Degrade the subject to Target, Home Depot et al, and why do their critical systems see anything (everything) on the www? At BEST the only equipment these computers should be seeing is the ONE system they need to communicate with to transfer their business.
Take it one step further: Why do banks - or email (Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail) NOT allow me to block access from other countries (and/or identify which country I'm visiting)?
Yes, I know that they can use 'other systems' to attack (right now: someone from IP 185.14.30.79 has been using such an attack against my web server for a couple weeks: It's getting really annoying) however such attacks can also be viewed and guarded against.
Leaving the barn door open (by connecting critical systems to the www) for such attacks seems very short sighted.
Continuing the idea even more: Is it possible that the western India eruptions could have been caused by another asteroid? The size of the eruptions (3 x larger than France) to me seems quite odd... at the time of 'only' 66 million years ago.
The show that I watched had the theory that the extension event may have been a 'worst of two storms'... the volcano (I have problem using the term 'volcano' with an event that big) followed by the asteroid impact.
I've heard this theory before & is not new news. The asteroid that struck (the Yucatan Peninsula) ~ 65 million years ago - was the size of Mt. Everest. The are proposing that this strike didn't have any secondary effects - such as volcanoes, earthquakes and the like? IMO... such a LARGE impact would have ramifications for MANY years to come.
I'm just asking you to separate facts from your own conjecture.
You are right... you weren't there, you didn't see it. However a series of facts (not conjecture) were laid out. People that were believable were listened to people who's stories didn't fit the facts (or changed their story multiple times) were not. Example: He was not shot in the back.
Fact: he was shot in the top of the head.
You are right there.....
Conjecture: what MB was doing that caused him to lower his head.
Not really. There were multiple people that did witness the incident, and they (the reliable ones) stated he charged the officer.
I'll say again, if somebody shot me I'd crumple to the ground pretty quickly and my head could end up facing the attacker.
Contact me again when you have experience in this area.
Note that MB WAS shot (in the hand), and DID run away. Physical evidence also suggests that MB may have been shot a 2nd time at the police car (Once reaching inside, once outside still at the door). Point here: Just being shot is not necessarily a reason to crumple over.
Then the officer could have shot him in the leg/foot, charge over, attacker alive and subdued. How why didn't that happen? Any one who has dealt with 'the man' knows they don't tolerate any challenge to their authority.
That (last) shot could only be fired while approaching the officer.
why would you believe this to be true? This looks like an unfounded assumption on your part. If I were shot in the belly, my first reaction would probably be to double over in pain, thus my head would be bowed before the officer.
1. He was not shot in the belly.
2. {ref.. head exposed}... as such the act of bending over... you would be approaching the officer.... (as you bent over).
Brick wall... please read the reports:
The fatal shot was the one that struck him in the top of the head. That (last) shot could only be fired while approaching the officer. As that shot did incapacitated him, if the officer fired more shots they would have been at a "down" angle (and no shots were fired in this direction).
May chance that 3 different autopsies (one by the family) all agreed that the fatal (and final) shot was the last one, in the head... with him charging the officer.
Running from a police officer is not an offense worthy of public execution without trial.
Only problem was: The fatal shot was fired when he was running / charging in the direction of the officer. (If you bothered to listen to the forensic evidence... oh wait: you are one of those "I've already made up my mind, con't confuse me with facts.)
Irony: Google mapson ChromeSUCK. I've make use of Chrome extensively, and occasionally forget that I'm using it when I need a map, so I have to move it to IE.
Why does Google go out of their way to make life difficult?
Interesting that more companies are moving away form Google. A couple months ago, RealNetworks (ya, reliable I know) changed it's default 2nd party offer from Google / Chrome to Ask. (Fun for the day: use Ask search and search for Ask toolbar... examine the results).
For me, it is getting harder to use Google search, especially if I want to search for more than two words. For simple searches... Google works fine. However... frequently Google will substitute terms (that don't belong), add obvious sales links (that don't apply), or have a referral to a second level search (which has always useless: best example is returning searches for an items from eBay -- if I wanted eBay I would search eBay). Google's image search(method) is much better than Bing's... but is there a viable option "B" general text / info search?
Given that they already have done something illegal (by asking in the first place, which has put their funding in jeopardy)... shifting the blame to a minion (that can get a job elsewhere if they get their hand caught in the cookie jar) is a no-brainer.
I've seen this type of thing before. They will just pull the words, get their funding, then when someone apples for the job they will then ask in the interview. If they are "caught" in the interview, they will blame the interviewing person... say "sorry" and continue.
a) The unused hardware lying around somewhere centrally, the company has paid for.
b) Your bosses budget hit to access this unused hardware, and the target to reach, affecting his income.
And back to my point: Why do I get cut off --- rather than a simple "this might/would affect our budget" ? ... and to add to the fun: Why would computers already paid for and not being used affect a groups budget? ...... and to add more fun: Other (remaining) employees made use equipment (computers) form other's that had left w/o issue - - or asking.
The problem starts higher up there.
Yep....
The whole point here: Communication. You seem to be hell bend on "the boss is always right"... not (as I'm trying to accomplish) "lets see if we can make this better".
People bring and have thumb drives there all the time. Other than improving productivity (and size) this is no different.
Also... Ever hear of "anti-virus"? Novel idea, might want to look into it. Not to mention that there has been virus software released on new production equipment.
Sometimes you need to think out of the box -- oh, that was my original though..
AC - you are just not thinking, much less critical thinking, much less examining how improvements can be done at the work place. You see, a real manager would have raised these as issues and concerns, not shut me down before I could finish the sentence.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the fans that are dying ... it's the competent executives (and writers). STC has them, and I they will continue.
The premium for servers (lack of) performance is not that great, for a given level of technology. Proper configuration is much more important. Also - what are the "conditions". A few years go -- we needed to improve out SQL servers. I installed and tested multiple configurations (including top of the line processors). The single biggest improvement - was the size of the RAID cache (and this was on process intensive code, not data intensive). The number of processors, the speed of the processor -- all of these had little impact. But using systems with significant RAID cache .. and one with a larger (larges available at the time) even when put on systems with slow speed -- out performed even the fastest CPU's (again.. keep in mind this was process intensive). I've found over the years that many people don't understand what they are testing. The jump to and make false claims with investigating the story behind the story.
Are storage spaces (such as Megaupload) responsible for their users files?
As the systems I use become - outdated, I'm looking to replace the PEx950 systems. The point of my post was that for many years they have been reliable workhorses. I don't expect that anyone would run out and purchase "new" PE x950 systems. Besides, I don't believe they will support the "new" 6 + core cpu's. If they wanted Dell, and if they wanted a new 1U server, the R620 would be a better selection.
... with dual or quad core); stating "it went faster" has no meaning. If you were to post some system stats -- & CPU speeds.
Degrading the topic only slightly more:
o As the PE1950 was available from 1.6 to 3.0 GHZ (in single or dual cpu
o You don't indicate if your application(s) were single or multi-threaded enabled.
o The initial release (system I) date for the PE x950 is not the same as the latest release date (system III).
Also, having older can be better: the software has had a chance to stabilize out, any (both software and hardware) issues can be researched BEFORE you buy it - the buyer is not just depended on the seller glossy advertisement. A system that is "significantly" faster - isn't any faster if it isn't running (or running properly).
I use server class systems for most of / as my desktops - especially for development. I remote to them where necessary. After having a significant number of hard drive and power supply failures, the server class systems have lasted significantly longer. (My preference leans to the PE1950 & PE2950 - I can get them in dual CPU quad core @ 3GHZ speed). In over two years - with 6 systems running (most of them continually) I've had two hard drive failures - both RAID 1 (no loss of data/downtime) and not power supply failures (yet). By placing most of them in a remote location in house -- the fan noise is tolerable. I'm starting to convert some of the systems to VM's (But conversion to VM's is not as easy as the companies would imply).
I would also like to know: How many other companies have a similar problem with their laptops? Is this a "dirty secret" of the industry?
... and in case you were wondering:
Actuator drift occurs when a valve is out of null, resulting in a piston moving slowly or drifting when there is no control signal (e.g. when the electrical power is off).
Now to research what is "out of null"....
Yeah, I agree. My management asked me after one incident how we could truly lock down one of our systems. I sent them a picture of a power strip with all the cords unplugged. They weren't amused. .
Ah... should have sent them a picture of a generator!
The truth is any system with users is never 100% secure, but that's not a popular answer.
Yes, agreed. BUT they can be a lot more secure than what is going on right now.
Because IT workers lack trade unions.
We don't have the authority to say "This is dangerous and violates acceptable practice" without getting fired.
Irony: I was fired for refusing to use using live customer data (and reported the practice to upper management). I advised that customer data (test) might be mixed with customer data (live) .. and was over-ruled -- the development team said that it could never happen. Just before I was fired, customers were calling and complaining - their (on-line) bills were not right - development had mixed the data connections - and the customers were looking at the "test" database. About six months later - the company was being investigated by the state AG.
Actually... I believe there is a right answer: Currently (as noted) management prefers to cut costs - without considering or being held responsible for the consequences. When "my" (personal) information is leaked over the internet, who pays? ME. Solution: crack down on such incidents - the person responsible for holding the information. In short: Improve security. WHEN it happens, pay the person who's information is leaked for potential damages from the company that holds the information -- and allow the door to be further open for (more) actual damages. In short: Put management’s feet to the fire. Wake up to the reality of the so-called savings. If you can't "secure" your data or equipment, you disconnect it from the internet. Pull the (internet) plug - a hacker can't gain access to and download terabytes of data from a physically isolated system.
I read this type of issue time after time.
Why are such critical systems connected to the internet... and further why are they (these critical systems) allowed to see "foreign" websites?
Start with this story: Why is there critical systems allowed to be in the same network as email? They should be physically separated - and never see the light of the www, Degrade the subject to Target, Home Depot et al, and why do their critical systems see anything (everything) on the www? At BEST the only equipment these computers should be seeing is the ONE system they need to communicate with to transfer their business.
Take it one step further: Why do banks - or email (Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail) NOT allow me to block access from other countries (and/or identify which country I'm visiting)?
Yes, I know that they can use 'other systems' to attack (right now: someone from IP 185.14.30.79 has been using such an attack against my web server for a couple weeks: It's getting really annoying) however such attacks can also be viewed and guarded against.
Leaving the barn door open (by connecting critical systems to the www) for such attacks seems very short sighted.
Continuing the idea even more: Is it possible that the western India eruptions could have been caused by another asteroid? The size of the eruptions (3 x larger than France) to me seems quite odd ... at the time of 'only' 66 million years ago.
... the volcano (I have problem using the term 'volcano' with an event that big) followed by the asteroid impact.
The show that I watched had the theory that the extension event may have been a 'worst of two storms'
I've heard this theory before & is not new news. The asteroid that struck (the Yucatan Peninsula) ~ 65 million years ago - was the size of Mt. Everest. The are proposing that this strike didn't have any secondary effects - such as volcanoes, earthquakes and the like? IMO ... such a LARGE impact would have ramifications for MANY years to come.
You really need to get facts.
Here - autopsy report for you to look at. The TWO hits to the torso were non-fatal.
I'm just asking you to separate facts from your own conjecture.
You are right... you weren't there, you didn't see it. However a series of facts (not conjecture) were laid out. People that were believable were listened to people who's stories didn't fit the facts (or changed their story multiple times) were not. Example: He was not shot in the back.
Fact: he was shot in the top of the head.
You are right there.....
Conjecture: what MB was doing that caused him to lower his head.
Not really. There were multiple people that did witness the incident, and they (the reliable ones) stated he charged the officer.
I'll say again, if somebody shot me I'd crumple to the ground pretty quickly and my head could end up facing the attacker.
Contact me again when you have experience in this area.
Note that MB WAS shot (in the hand), and DID run away. Physical evidence also suggests that MB may have been shot a 2nd time at the police car (Once reaching inside, once outside still at the door). Point here: Just being shot is not necessarily a reason to crumple over.
Then the officer could have shot him in the leg/foot, charge over, attacker alive and subdued. How why didn't that happen? Any one who has dealt with 'the man' knows they don't tolerate any challenge to their authority.
he did / tried... 10 times 12 shots were fired.
That (last) shot could only be fired while approaching the officer.
why would you believe this to be true? This looks like an unfounded assumption on your part. If I were shot in the belly, my first reaction would probably be to double over in pain, thus my head would be bowed before the officer.
1. He was not shot in the belly. .. head exposed}... as such the act of bending over ... you would be approaching the officer.... (as you bent over).
2. {ref
Brick wall ... please read the reports:
The fatal shot was the one that struck him in the top of the head. That (last) shot could only be fired while approaching the officer. As that shot did incapacitated him, if the officer fired more shots they would have been at a "down" angle (and no shots were fired in this direction).
May chance that 3 different autopsies (one by the family) all agreed that the fatal (and final) shot was the last one, in the head ... with him charging the officer.
Please look at the evidence.
Running from a police officer is not an offense worthy of public execution without trial.
Only problem was: The fatal shot was fired when he was running / charging in the direction of the officer. (If you bothered to listen to the forensic evidence... oh wait: you are one of those "I've already made up my mind, con't confuse me with facts.)
Google maps!
Irony: Google mapson Chrome SUCK. I've make use of Chrome extensively, and occasionally forget that I'm using it when I need a map, so I have to move it to IE.
Why does Google go out of their way to make life difficult?
Interesting that more companies are moving away form Google. A couple months ago, RealNetworks (ya, reliable I know) changed it's default 2nd party offer from Google / Chrome to Ask. (Fun for the day: use Ask search and search for Ask toolbar ... examine the results).
... Google works fine. However ... frequently Google will substitute terms (that don't belong), add obvious sales links (that don't apply), or have a referral to a second level search (which has always useless: best example is returning searches for an items from eBay -- if I wanted eBay I would search eBay). Google's image search(method) is much better than Bing's ... but is there a viable option "B" general text / info search?
For me, it is getting harder to use Google search, especially if I want to search for more than two words. For simple searches
Given that they already have done something illegal (by asking in the first place, which has put their funding in jeopardy) ... shifting the blame to a minion (that can get a job elsewhere if they get their hand caught in the cookie jar) is a no-brainer.
I've seen this type of thing before. They will just pull the words, get their funding, then when someone apples for the job they will then ask in the interview. If they are "caught" in the interview, they will blame the interviewing person... say "sorry" and continue.
a) The unused hardware lying around somewhere centrally, the company has paid for. b) Your bosses budget hit to access this unused hardware, and the target to reach, affecting his income.
And back to my point: Why do I get cut off --- rather than a simple "this might/would affect our budget" ?
... and to add to the fun: Why would computers already paid for and not being used affect a groups budget?
... ... and to add more fun: Other (remaining) employees made use equipment (computers) form other's that had left w/o issue - - or asking.
The problem starts higher up there.
Yep.... ... not (as I'm trying to accomplish) "lets see if we can make this better".
The whole point here: Communication. You seem to be hell bend on "the boss is always right"
People bring and have thumb drives there all the time. Other than improving productivity (and size) this is no different. ... Ever hear of "anti-virus"? Novel idea, might want to look into it. Not to mention that there has been virus software released on new production equipment.
Also
Sometimes you need to think out of the box -- oh, that was my original though..
AC - you are just not thinking, much less critical thinking, much less examining how improvements can be done at the work place. You see, a real manager would have raised these as issues and concerns, not shut me down before I could finish the sentence.