I think what they are trying to say is that the intel system, running emulation, might deliver performance greater than a G4 running native apps.
'Course... that's a wild ass guess.
But, it "fits" the facts a lot better.
Especially when you consider that right off the bat there will still be a lot of non-native software. People really will expect to install a lot of their *current* software.
vote in someone who will make the changes you want.
Nice in theory.
Any idea when this person will make it onto the ballot? Because in my 20+ years I've yet to be presented with a ballot that had someone I wanted to vote for.
Just a bunch of people I didn't want to be in charge.
That is the major flaw with democracy... it falls flat on it's face when the majority of voters are fscking idiots.
In the end, this table could be supported by postgresql/mysql. But I'd get 60-second response time on queries against that table. With db2 I'm going to get sub-second response time.
My pages have to be generated in less than 0.5 seconds on an unloaded system. (That is application and db processing) In production, the system generates pages in less than one second with 100 to 500 users logged in.
When it starts getting close is when I'll start looking at something else. Right now, I've been able to tweak MySQL into meeting that benchmark.
Right now I get this on my dev box:
This page was generated in 0.05 seconds.
This page took 0.01 seconds of database time.
This page took 0.3 seconds to load.
:-)
That page made 10 calls to the db with a total processing time of roughly 0.0055 seconds. Some pages currently make upwards of 40 calls... but they'll get refactored when their performance starts to lag under load.
How long the browser takes to load the page is by far the biggest time sink... even more so for users that have to actually connect via the network.
Personally though, I like to enable trending for data analysis - even on your typical transactional databases. And so I find that historical data is pretty valuable.
Oh, it would still be available... I would just connect to a different db to pull it in. My code is already written for that to happen, I just need to change the connection string for the historical db. Right now it is exactly the same as the current db connection... so they both live in the same db.
That way we are only dealing with replication and backups for one database server, ATM.
A real database user that needed to hold a value of 300 would not use a column type that has a range of 0 to 255 or -127 to 127, since they would have read the page on choosing types.
True.
But, a real programmer may not check the data... expecting instead for the storage system to report an error if it can not be stored.
(whether they should check the data before handing it off for storage is another discussion entirely)
Any storage system should report errors if it can't store your data as requested. Not silently change the data and act like everything worked.
OK... I'm not arguing about the *premise*... but... I don't consider your numbers to be justification for a different db.
Anyhow, I've got an application right now that for its first two years stayed quite small - just a few thousand rows. Implemented in db2 - since we need a major database anyway for the larger databases with a billion rows, and we can save labor by staying consistent. Anyway, this little database is about to now explode in size due to expanded requirements and new customers - we're expecting one little critical table to go from 3,000 rows to around 500,000. Its history table will go from maybe 10,000 to 10,000,000 rows. Other tables throughout the databae will likewise expand. DB2 was overkill when this database was first created, now it's perfect: it'll support the heavy transactional loads, automated system failover, and very fast scans, reports and other tough queries. This application growth is not at all uncommon - everyone is putting far more data into databases than they were just a few years ago.
I've got a web app I'm working on... that has been in use for three years.
It uses MySQL.
And... it is currently 1.5 Gig in size. One of the tables has almost 4 million rows. There are 64 tables in total.
I figured in a few years I may need to split the db and store the historical data on a different machine...
But, I'm not thinking it is too big at the moment... or for a few more years.
I always wonder why one would want YPbPr so badly... Are there many TVs in your country that support YPbPr and not RGB? Over here, RGB is always there, and YPbPr often is (becoming more prevalent).
Well... I'm not sure where "your country" and "over here" are... but...
Here in the U.S. I have a very nice TV... not a projection or LCD/Plasma system... a real, honest to goodness TV... with YPbPr... and no RGB.
It is made by Zenith. (37 inch inteq series... a quick jaunt to their site shows that they don't make 'em this big any more)
According to their site:
Component Video is the purest and best signal form available. Component video divides the video signal up into its three components: blue (PB), red (PR) and luminance (Y). By dividing the signal this way, you get a clearer image that provides for improved resolution and overall better color detail.
Because you want to run different versions of the web app you wrote (and are still writing) and to make things really fast lots of information is shared amongst all of the apache children. (Like cached database result sets)
Each version may be different for different customers, for example.
And you want to do it all on one machine because as a developer you are trying to make a living actually writing the software, not run it in a production facility.
But, the different versions of the app use different databases... and the shared data is different.
So, you can only run one version of the app at a time on/with an apache process.
Solution: configure multiple apache processes running off of different ports with a common apache proxy frontend and some rewrite rules to send the request to the correct backend process.
Slashdot Mirror
If humans are too complex to have evolved, what does that say about the aliens that might have designed us?
Or ANY other being...
That is one of the (many) problems I have with ID. It doesn't "answer" any question.
"God" isn't an answer... it is a cop out.
Linux:
Install Windows.
Because that is the only way 'C: drive' has any meaning.
I've considered, and am still considering buying an iPod.
/>
Never would I consider buying a song from ITMS.
<shrug
I think what they are trying to say is that the intel system, running emulation, might deliver performance greater than a G4 running native apps.
'Course... that's a wild ass guess.
But, it "fits" the facts a lot better.
Especially when you consider that right off the bat there will still be a lot of non-native software. People really will expect to install a lot of their *current* software.
I turn off the stupid menu effects first... 'cuz they bug the shit out of me as I'm hunting for all the other things that have to be fixed.
Real clients have their own servers.
I don't have flash installed, and you know what?
I've found browsing to be much more injoyable!
Flash: mostly crap.
On my box it dies with this:I'm quite sure I don't have a 'MSJVM'... thankfully.
His 16 year old girls can kick your ass.
Maybe that is what you find disturbing...
Can I just put this freak creation on the reader and start my ripping program? Of course I can. Where is the protection?
They won't work with current readers. You will need a new, compatible reader.
And, chances are that reader will only work on Windows (if on any computer at all)... and be heavily DRM'd.
Far from it.
Actually, I think Republicans are a perfect reason *to* own guns.
Unfortunately, right now I think anarchy would be preferable to what we have...
Reminds me of a saying I saw somewhere:
if you don't have the votes, your party must find some way to express their opinions.
;-)
Me... I prefer the second ammendment.
It is *great* for "correcting" things the guv'ment does... especially important for those "lifelong" thingies...
he's a moral conservative
That would be someone that conserves his morals for those occasions when others are watching... right?
To me that is like eating peanut butter topped with alfredo cream sauce.
;-)
Well... since I liked the movie... I'm just gonna have to try that combo.
Hell, might be just as tasty as peanut butter on bananas.
vote in someone who will make the changes you want.
Nice in theory.
Any idea when this person will make it onto the ballot? Because in my 20+ years I've yet to be presented with a ballot that had someone I wanted to vote for.
Just a bunch of people I didn't want to be in charge.
That is the major flaw with democracy... it falls flat on it's face when the majority of voters are fscking idiots.
If I could point to *ONE* thing I got for all that money i might feel better about it.
Carefull what you wish for... there are now thousands of people that want to kill you just becasue you are from the US.
Your (and my) tax dollars at work!
Anyone spending half their life at work should reassess their priorities
You are right, they should do something they like instead.
Oh wait... I work for myself... and happen to not just like, but fscking LOVE what I do for a living.
So... are you saying that, just because I get paid to do something I love... I should stop and do something else instead?
Get real. The mone is nice... really, it is... but that is an EXTRA benefit.
Not the prime motivator...
Check these out:
Easy Automated Snapshot-Style Backups with Linux and Rsync
rsnapshot is a filesystem snapshot utility for making backups of local and remote systems.
My pages have to be generated in less than 0.5 seconds on an unloaded system. (That is application and db processing) In production, the system generates pages in less than one second with 100 to 500 users logged in.
When it starts getting close is when I'll start looking at something else. Right now, I've been able to tweak MySQL into meeting that benchmark.
Right now I get this on my dev box:
That page made 10 calls to the db with a total processing time of roughly 0.0055 seconds. Some pages currently make upwards of 40 calls... but they'll get refactored when their performance starts to lag under load.
How long the browser takes to load the page is by far the biggest time sink... even more so for users that have to actually connect via the network.
Personally though, I like to enable trending for data analysis - even on your typical transactional databases. And so I find that historical data is pretty valuable.
Oh, it would still be available... I would just connect to a different db to pull it in. My code is already written for that to happen, I just need to change the connection string for the historical db. Right now it is exactly the same as the current db connection... so they both live in the same db.
That way we are only dealing with replication and backups for one database server, ATM.
I use phpMyAdmin all day long and wouldn't touch PHP for my programming projects.
;-)
I'm a Perl programmer... so there!
Point is... phpMyAdmin rocks... even if you *don't* work with PHP.
(I also use tools written in C, C++, Python, Ruby and who knows what other heathen languages...)
A real database user that needed to hold a value of 300 would not use a column type that has a range of 0 to 255 or -127 to 127, since they would have read the page on choosing types.
True.
But, a real programmer may not check the data... expecting instead for the storage system to report an error if it can not be stored.
(whether they should check the data before handing it off for storage is another discussion entirely)
Any storage system should report errors if it can't store your data as requested. Not silently change the data and act like everything worked.
Is it a real database yet?
Well... I'm a programmer who does db stuff, not a dba... so, I wouldn't know a "real" database if you hit me up side the head with it's manual.
But...
Does it return an error when it doesn't store the data you asked it to store... or does it just silently truncate it and pretend everything went well?
Especially fun when you throw invalid enumerated values at it...
(Hell, they may have that fixed already... but it doesn't work in the setup I'm currently using.)
OK... I'm not arguing about the *premise*... but... I don't consider your numbers to be justification for a different db.
Anyhow, I've got an application right now that for its first two years stayed quite small - just a few thousand rows. Implemented in db2 - since we need a major database anyway for the larger databases with a billion rows, and we can save labor by staying consistent. Anyway, this little database is about to now explode in size due to expanded requirements and new customers - we're expecting one little critical table to go from 3,000 rows to around 500,000. Its history table will go from maybe 10,000 to 10,000,000 rows. Other tables throughout the databae will likewise expand. DB2 was overkill when this database was first created, now it's perfect: it'll support the heavy transactional loads, automated system failover, and very fast scans, reports and other tough queries. This application growth is not at all uncommon - everyone is putting far more data into databases than they were just a few years ago.
I've got a web app I'm working on... that has been in use for three years.
It uses MySQL.
And... it is currently 1.5 Gig in size. One of the tables has almost 4 million rows. There are 64 tables in total.
I figured in a few years I may need to split the db and store the historical data on a different machine...
But, I'm not thinking it is too big at the moment... or for a few more years.
At least.
Are there many TVs in your country that support YPbPr and not RGB?
Over here, RGB is always there, and YPbPr often is (becoming more prevalent).
Well... I'm not sure where "your country" and "over here" are... but...
Here in the U.S. I have a very nice TV... not a projection or LCD/Plasma system... a real, honest to goodness TV... with YPbPr... and no RGB.
It is made by Zenith. (37 inch inteq series... a quick jaunt to their site shows that they don't make 'em this big any more)
According to their site:This was for their model # C32F33 32 inch television.
Because you want to run different versions of the web app you wrote (and are still writing) and to make things really fast lots of information is shared amongst all of the apache children. (Like cached database result sets)
Each version may be different for different customers, for example.
And you want to do it all on one machine because as a developer you are trying to make a living actually writing the software, not run it in a production facility.
But, the different versions of the app use different databases... and the shared data is different.
So, you can only run one version of the app at a time on/with an apache process.
Solution: configure multiple apache processes running off of different ports with a common apache proxy frontend and some rewrite rules to send the request to the correct backend process.