No, what they did was include code that automatically resizes the hero shot to take up all the available space.
That is not what's happening. In every screen shot shown in this thread the iPad mini image is scaled down, not up. As your browser window gets larger it increases in size until it is it's real size. After that it stops scaling. Also the page switches to a portrait layout if your browser window get's beyond a certain height. If one trusts timestamps provided by the web server, the scripts and images that make this happen have been on the site since the day before the iPad mini announcement.
The image in question (http://images.apple.com/uk/home/images/hero.png) is 828x809 pixels. It's been there since 22 Oct 2012. The day before the announcement of the iPad mini:
$ telnet images.apple.com 80 Trying 184.84.183.155... Connected to images.apple.com (184.84.183.155). Escape character is '^]'. HEAD/uk/home/images/hero.png HTTP/1.0 Host: images.apple.com
HTTP/1.0 200 OK Last-Modified: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:24:46 GMT Server: Apache nnCoection: close Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 448138 Content-Type: image/png Cache-Control: max-age=2070 Expires: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 05:46:54 GMT Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 05:12:24 GMT Connection: close
They're not making the image bigger when you make your browser window larger. They are making the image smaller to fit crappy small browser windows.
Not sure what you are seeing, but I just went to the site. Turned my monitor so that it's 2560 pixels high and then maximized the browser. There the statement was, right at the bottom of the content, with about a thousand white pixels below it. Only thing different is that the layout of the page changed to be more appropriate for the shape of the display (1440x2560 rather than 2560x1440.) The script that manages this was last changed two weeks ago, long before the notice was added.
You're putting words in his mouth. What he said was:
...porting their games to Linux showed a massive performance increase over the Windows version.
They didn't port to linux and see a "massive" -- 20% is not massive regardless-- improvement. They ported to OpenGL because they had to in order to run on Linux and found an improvement. Then they took that code base to Windows and found the same improvement. Under OpenGL the performance is effectively the same. Anyone who wants to imply that there is some large performance advantage for gaming on Linux and wants to use this as an example is being intentionally ignorant at least or just plain lying at worst.
You're missing the point. It's not about which implementation is better, we all agree that the opengl implementation is faster than the directx implementation. The G*P made the argument that two different implementations running on two different OSes tells you which OS is better. That's false. You cannot tell because you have two variables on each side of the equation and both variables are changing in the test. If A = opengl, B = directx, C = linux and D = windows, then A + C > B + D tells you nothing about the validity of C > D. What's more it seems that when removing directx from the equation and replacing it with opengl, it turns out that A + C ~ A + D.
This makes no sense. If you have two different implementations you cannot draw conclusions about the OSes by comparing those two implementations. If I have a bubble sort and use it to sort seven billion strings and run that on linux, and if-statement used sort two numbers on windows, does that mean that windows is "massively" better than linux? You need to be using, as near as possible, the same code if what you are measuring is the underlying platform performance. If you want to measure the difference in two completely different implementations that's fine, but it doesn't tell you anything about the underlying platform.
Valve is a big fish in a small pond, now they're seeing a blue whale heading their way and they are desperately looking for a new small pond. Who needs Steam when there is the Windows Store?
I think they gave them one of those one things. You know. Those things. What're they called? It's right here on the tip of my tongue. I hate it when this happens. One of those one things. Ah-ha! I got it: a paycheck.
The card the the iPod are just thank you's. Going above and beyond. Ya putz.
No significant changes in bacterial species composition or in the proportional representation of genes encoding known enzymes were observed in the feces of humans consuming the FMP.
Reporting in Science Translational Medicine, researchers write that the bacteria in yogurt affect people’s digestion--but not by repopulating gut flora. Microbiologist Jeffrey Gordon talks about these findings and the future of using bacteria as therapy for digestive disorders such as diarrhea.
A mediocre American who the government has to subsidize $200k for education is such a better investment.
It is a complete myth that any portion of the college educated in the U.S. have spent in excess of $100,000 for their college education. The average student debt accrued by people graduating college in 2009 was approximately $20,000.
It was the 486DX that brought the FPU on chip. The 386DX had a 32-bit wide data bus and the 386SX has a 16-bit wide data bus, as well as only 24-bits of the address bus hooked up externally.
X11 stopped performing well a long time ago. All the primitives X11 provides for drawing fonts and drawing lines & rectangles are arcane and obsolete and aren't even used any more. QT and GTK render their graphics and fonts to a bitmap on the server and send the bitmap over the wire. So X11 imposes a CPU and memory penalty on the server and a network penalty to send all this data. When that's the starting position, it's hard to see how Wayland could do any worse.
Not to get pedantic, but you need to learn which is the server and which is the client when it comes to X11. If something is rendering to a pixmap on the server, then it doesn't need to traverse the network to move it to the display. It's already there.
I'm curious. How long did it take you to build your own fab, license an x86 core, audit the licensed core, manufacture your own processor, license, audit and manufacture all the supporting integrated circuits. Build your own motherboard. Write or source license a BIOS (audited by yourself of course). Then once this thing was actually able to post, you personally audited every single line of code involved in your favorite OS. And of course you're toolchain was built by you with pencil and paper, carefully writing down opcodes one after another. Bug free of course. Then you used that self created toolchain to compile your perfectly audited and fully corrected (bug free!!! woo-hoo!!!) OS. And not a single piece of code has gotten onto your computer without you personally auditing it and fixing all bugs.
A bit selfish of you to keep all this bug free hardware and software to yourself, don't you think?
This use of the term "zero-day" has got to be the dumbest fucking evolution of a term ever. It originated in the warez world and meant that the protection of a piece of software was cracked on the first day of its availability, i.e. day zero. The way it's being used here is epically stupid -- "anything previously unknown to the developers" -- you mean like *every* *single* *bug* reported by a third party? I know trendy jargon makes the IT security industry sound dynamic, shadowy and thrilling, but is it really too much to ask that when adopting terms that they be used in ways that capture the original intent of the phrase? Why don't we just call them insulin-resistant-mutually-assured-destruction-root-out-the-terrorist cell bugs? Makes about as much sense.
The Office of Management and Budget is the agency that allocates money and long-term spending within federal agencies.
No they aren't. OMB is part of the executive branch. The executive branch is constrained by Congress, they cannot spend money on anything they want nor can they shuffle money around willy-nilly. Yes, the President submits a proposal to Congress and that proposal is developed at the OMB. But if Congress doesn't adopt that proposal then the President's budget is meaningless.
How can it be a basic right if guaranteeing it means violating the basic rights of others?
I'm nearly positive that I have a basic human right to a weekly three-way with Jessica Biel and Scarlett Johanson.
(Actually, I've always wondered why it is that if I choose to work and receive a salary then a portion of that salary is to be given to others, but if the eighteen year old hotty next door chooses to have wild monkey sex at least a portion of that isn't with me! Damn the injustice of life!)
Good story. But has nothing to do with whether enterprise drives are the same as consumer drives.
However if you want to compare penis sizes, how about when a drive fails in either our Hitachi VSP or AMS arrays, they automatically rebuild using a hot spare, phone home and order a replacement, and there is no impact on performance and none of the users are even aware it happened. All this while carrying 40,000+ IOPS, over 99% of which are serviced at 10 ms latency.
I am baffled as to why people think their one -- often special purpose -- use case is definitive for all storage situations the world over.
I'm not sure who you are disagreeing with, but it's not me. My point was that there is a difference between consumer and enterprise grade drives. Not that enterprise grade is more reliable than consumer grade. The main differences I listed have to do with performance and the ability to get one's data off the drive.
Here are some basic facts about storage for you. A 5400 RPM drive has an average rotational latency of 5.5 milliseconds. A 7200 RPM drive averages 4 milliseconds. A 10K RPM drive, 3 milliseconds. And 15K RPM averages 2 milliseconds. This is just basic math -- any particular block on the drive will sometimes be right before the head and sometimes right behind the head. On average the platter has to spin halfway around to bring that block to the head.
But that's only a portion of the performance of a drive. The other part is how long it takes the head to move from track to track. This is much more design dependent. But in general enterprise drives are expected to have a seek time in the 3-5 millisecond range and consumer drives run 5 and up, typically 5-10 milliseconds.
Add these up and a typical 15K RPM drive will have about 6 ms latency and a typical 7200 RPM drive will have 11 ms latency. Which means that a 15K RPM drive can do approximately 165 random IO operations at it's typical latency (normally measured in terms of 4k, 8k or 16k IOs.) A 7200 RPM drive can do approximately 90 random IOPS. This is a big deal when dealing with multi-user server applications.
Additionally, all SAS and FC drives are dual ported and SAS and FC fabrics are multi-initiator. Which allows them to be deployed in fully redundant and fully active configurations (two paths between server and array, two controllers in the array, two mirrored caches and two paths from each controller to each disk.) A SATA drive has one port. There are port multiplexers that can be inserted between the drive and the chassis, but because the drive itself is natively single ported, only one of the multiplexed ports can be active at a time and thus are limited to having fail-over between the controllers rather than active-active controllers.
As far as RAID performance goes... Two mirrored 7200 RPM drives do not provide the equivalent of a 14.4K RPM drive. Minimum latency is limited by the speed of a single drive regardless of RAID of any type. Here's what a two drive RAID1 gets you: one redundant copy of your data. Twice as many read operations at the same latency as a single disk. And the write performance of a single disk. Because you can do twice as many read operations, you get double the read bandwidth. Yes you can add more drives to your mirror, but there comes a point where the rest of your storage subsystem becomes less redundant that your drives. RAID5 (or RAID6, or RAIDZ, or RAIDZ2, etc.) gets you redundancy to the level of however many disks worth of parity your system implements. For a standard RAID5 that is a single disk failure, for RAID6 it's two disks, etc. Read performance increases as a multiple of the number of drives in your raid group. Write performance is a read and a write of your data block plus a read and write for each parity block. For RAID5 that means that each write will do four IO operations into the raid group. So an eight drive raid group should get double the write performance of a single drive. Of course any array that one would use in an enterprise environment will have at least two battery backed up caches, which makes any write penalties moot as all writes are cached.
As far as reliability goes, that's an interesting question. The fact is hard drives die. However the premium I pay buying hard drives from my storage or server vendor includes 4 hour replacement SLAs in western countries and in less developed areas it's typically 24 hours. I don't know what Costco's policy is, but I'm sure it doesn't involve bringing the HDD to me today and I'd be surprised if I could show up three years later and have them replace my HDD with a matching device. Additionally consumer grade drive
It's safe to assume that your snarky lmgfty link goes with your point b? Have you actually read that report, in particular the first paragraph of section 2.2 where they state:
The disks are a combination of serial and parallel ATA consumer-grade hard disk drives, ranging in speed from 5400 to 7200 rpm, and in size from 80 to 400 GB.
How exactly is a study of consumer-grade disk drives supposed to tell us anything about enterprise drives?
The difference between an internet search engine and a cloud backup solution is that "good enough" for a search engine is that the results are satisfying enough that I keep returning to that particular search engine. "Good enough" for a backup solution means I can read my data back. Very different situations. Write-only storage isn't terribly useful.
Anyone who thinks enterprise grade drives and consumer grade drives are the same either hasn't ever seen an enterprise drive or they haven't actually compared. Here's a little experiment for you. Get an actual enterprise grade drive and an actual consumer grade drive and place them on a scale. The fact that they don't weigh the same should tell you something about how different they really are. Consumer grade drives user higher density platters, they use different head positioning mechanisms, and they have different motors.
FWIW exactly zero of the servers in the data center I work in have 7200 RPM drives. Exactly zero of the servers in the data center I work in have 1+ TB drives. Exactly zero of the servers in the data center I work in have SATA drives. In our SAN attached arrays we have over three thousand five hundred drives, zero of them are SATA. Zero of them are 7200 RPM. If we were a small business things might be different, but to us our data matters and it being available matters.
Slashdot Mirror
That is not what's happening. In every screen shot shown in this thread the iPad mini image is scaled down , not up. As your browser window gets larger it increases in size until it is it's real size. After that it stops scaling. Also the page switches to a portrait layout if your browser window get's beyond a certain height. If one trusts timestamps provided by the web server, the scripts and images that make this happen have been on the site since the day before the iPad mini announcement.
The image in question (http://images.apple.com/uk/home/images/hero.png) is 828x809 pixels. It's been there since 22 Oct 2012. The day before the announcement of the iPad mini:
$ telnet images.apple.com 80 /uk/home/images/hero.png HTTP/1.0
Trying 184.84.183.155...
Connected to images.apple.com (184.84.183.155).
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD
Host: images.apple.com
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Last-Modified: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:24:46 GMT
Server: Apache
nnCoection: close
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 448138
Content-Type: image/png
Cache-Control: max-age=2070
Expires: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 05:46:54 GMT
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 05:12:24 GMT
Connection: close
They're not making the image bigger when you make your browser window larger. They are making the image smaller to fit crappy small browser windows.
Not sure what you are seeing, but I just went to the site. Turned my monitor so that it's 2560 pixels high and then maximized the browser. There the statement was, right at the bottom of the content, with about a thousand white pixels below it. Only thing different is that the layout of the page changed to be more appropriate for the shape of the display (1440x2560 rather than 2560x1440.) The script that manages this was last changed two weeks ago, long before the notice was added.
One would think that leaking less is out performing. Apparently presidents are like gaskets. Or sphincters. Take from that what you will.
You're putting words in his mouth. What he said was:
They didn't port to linux and see a "massive" -- 20% is not massive regardless-- improvement. They ported to OpenGL because they had to in order to run on Linux and found an improvement. Then they took that code base to Windows and found the same improvement. Under OpenGL the performance is effectively the same. Anyone who wants to imply that there is some large performance advantage for gaming on Linux and wants to use this as an example is being intentionally ignorant at least or just plain lying at worst.
You're missing the point. It's not about which implementation is better, we all agree that the opengl implementation is faster than the directx implementation. The G*P made the argument that two different implementations running on two different OSes tells you which OS is better. That's false. You cannot tell because you have two variables on each side of the equation and both variables are changing in the test. If A = opengl, B = directx, C = linux and D = windows, then A + C > B + D tells you nothing about the validity of C > D. What's more it seems that when removing directx from the equation and replacing it with opengl, it turns out that A + C ~ A + D.
There's a chip between the RAM and the bus. Also known as buffered.
This makes no sense. If you have two different implementations you cannot draw conclusions about the OSes by comparing those two implementations. If I have a bubble sort and use it to sort seven billion strings and run that on linux, and if-statement used sort two numbers on windows, does that mean that windows is "massively" better than linux? You need to be using, as near as possible, the same code if what you are measuring is the underlying platform performance. If you want to measure the difference in two completely different implementations that's fine, but it doesn't tell you anything about the underlying platform.
Valve is a big fish in a small pond, now they're seeing a blue whale heading their way and they are desperately looking for a new small pond. Who needs Steam when there is the Windows Store?
If a 3.8% advantage is "massive", what words do you reserve for things that have advantages/improvements on the order of 50%+?
I think they gave them one of those one things. You know. Those things. What're they called? It's right here on the tip of my tongue. I hate it when this happens. One of those one things. Ah-ha! I got it: a paycheck.
The card the the iPod are just thank you's. Going above and beyond. Ya putz.
Microbiologists disagree. The technical:
Or the layman versions:
Is this a troll? Cause you can tell that yogurt has nothing to do with the bacteria in your digestive tract because you don't shit yogurt, eh?
It is a complete myth that any portion of the college educated in the U.S. have spent in excess of $100,000 for their college education. The average student debt accrued by people graduating college in 2009 was approximately $20,000.
It was the 486DX that brought the FPU on chip. The 386DX had a 32-bit wide data bus and the 386SX has a 16-bit wide data bus, as well as only 24-bits of the address bus hooked up externally.
Not to get pedantic, but you need to learn which is the server and which is the client when it comes to X11. If something is rendering to a pixmap on the server, then it doesn't need to traverse the network to move it to the display. It's already there.
I'm curious. How long did it take you to build your own fab, license an x86 core, audit the licensed core, manufacture your own processor, license, audit and manufacture all the supporting integrated circuits. Build your own motherboard. Write or source license a BIOS (audited by yourself of course). Then once this thing was actually able to post, you personally audited every single line of code involved in your favorite OS. And of course you're toolchain was built by you with pencil and paper, carefully writing down opcodes one after another. Bug free of course. Then you used that self created toolchain to compile your perfectly audited and fully corrected (bug free!!! woo-hoo!!!) OS. And not a single piece of code has gotten onto your computer without you personally auditing it and fixing all bugs.
A bit selfish of you to keep all this bug free hardware and software to yourself, don't you think?
This use of the term "zero-day" has got to be the dumbest fucking evolution of a term ever. It originated in the warez world and meant that the protection of a piece of software was cracked on the first day of its availability, i.e. day zero. The way it's being used here is epically stupid -- "anything previously unknown to the developers" -- you mean like *every* *single* *bug* reported by a third party? I know trendy jargon makes the IT security industry sound dynamic, shadowy and thrilling, but is it really too much to ask that when adopting terms that they be used in ways that capture the original intent of the phrase? Why don't we just call them insulin-resistant-mutually-assured-destruction-root-out-the-terrorist cell bugs? Makes about as much sense.
No they aren't. OMB is part of the executive branch. The executive branch is constrained by Congress, they cannot spend money on anything they want nor can they shuffle money around willy-nilly. Yes, the President submits a proposal to Congress and that proposal is developed at the OMB. But if Congress doesn't adopt that proposal then the President's budget is meaningless.
Really? Not even trying?
I'm nearly positive that I have a basic human right to a weekly three-way with Jessica Biel and Scarlett Johanson.
(Actually, I've always wondered why it is that if I choose to work and receive a salary then a portion of that salary is to be given to others, but if the eighteen year old hotty next door chooses to have wild monkey sex at least a portion of that isn't with me! Damn the injustice of life!)
Good story. But has nothing to do with whether enterprise drives are the same as consumer drives.
However if you want to compare penis sizes, how about when a drive fails in either our Hitachi VSP or AMS arrays, they automatically rebuild using a hot spare, phone home and order a replacement, and there is no impact on performance and none of the users are even aware it happened. All this while carrying 40,000+ IOPS, over 99% of which are serviced at 10 ms latency.
I am baffled as to why people think their one -- often special purpose -- use case is definitive for all storage situations the world over.
I'm not sure who you are disagreeing with, but it's not me. My point was that there is a difference between consumer and enterprise grade drives. Not that enterprise grade is more reliable than consumer grade. The main differences I listed have to do with performance and the ability to get one's data off the drive.
Here are some basic facts about storage for you. A 5400 RPM drive has an average rotational latency of 5.5 milliseconds. A 7200 RPM drive averages 4 milliseconds. A 10K RPM drive, 3 milliseconds. And 15K RPM averages 2 milliseconds. This is just basic math -- any particular block on the drive will sometimes be right before the head and sometimes right behind the head. On average the platter has to spin halfway around to bring that block to the head.
But that's only a portion of the performance of a drive. The other part is how long it takes the head to move from track to track. This is much more design dependent. But in general enterprise drives are expected to have a seek time in the 3-5 millisecond range and consumer drives run 5 and up, typically 5-10 milliseconds.
Add these up and a typical 15K RPM drive will have about 6 ms latency and a typical 7200 RPM drive will have 11 ms latency. Which means that a 15K RPM drive can do approximately 165 random IO operations at it's typical latency (normally measured in terms of 4k, 8k or 16k IOs.) A 7200 RPM drive can do approximately 90 random IOPS. This is a big deal when dealing with multi-user server applications.
Additionally, all SAS and FC drives are dual ported and SAS and FC fabrics are multi-initiator. Which allows them to be deployed in fully redundant and fully active configurations (two paths between server and array, two controllers in the array, two mirrored caches and two paths from each controller to each disk.) A SATA drive has one port. There are port multiplexers that can be inserted between the drive and the chassis, but because the drive itself is natively single ported, only one of the multiplexed ports can be active at a time and thus are limited to having fail-over between the controllers rather than active-active controllers.
As far as RAID performance goes... Two mirrored 7200 RPM drives do not provide the equivalent of a 14.4K RPM drive. Minimum latency is limited by the speed of a single drive regardless of RAID of any type. Here's what a two drive RAID1 gets you: one redundant copy of your data. Twice as many read operations at the same latency as a single disk. And the write performance of a single disk. Because you can do twice as many read operations, you get double the read bandwidth. Yes you can add more drives to your mirror, but there comes a point where the rest of your storage subsystem becomes less redundant that your drives. RAID5 (or RAID6, or RAIDZ, or RAIDZ2, etc.) gets you redundancy to the level of however many disks worth of parity your system implements. For a standard RAID5 that is a single disk failure, for RAID6 it's two disks, etc. Read performance increases as a multiple of the number of drives in your raid group. Write performance is a read and a write of your data block plus a read and write for each parity block. For RAID5 that means that each write will do four IO operations into the raid group. So an eight drive raid group should get double the write performance of a single drive. Of course any array that one would use in an enterprise environment will have at least two battery backed up caches, which makes any write penalties moot as all writes are cached.
As far as reliability goes, that's an interesting question. The fact is hard drives die. However the premium I pay buying hard drives from my storage or server vendor includes 4 hour replacement SLAs in western countries and in less developed areas it's typically 24 hours. I don't know what Costco's policy is, but I'm sure it doesn't involve bringing the HDD to me today and I'd be surprised if I could show up three years later and have them replace my HDD with a matching device. Additionally consumer grade drive
It's safe to assume that your snarky lmgfty link goes with your point b? Have you actually read that report, in particular the first paragraph of section 2.2 where they state:
How exactly is a study of consumer-grade disk drives supposed to tell us anything about enterprise drives?
The difference between an internet search engine and a cloud backup solution is that "good enough" for a search engine is that the results are satisfying enough that I keep returning to that particular search engine. "Good enough" for a backup solution means I can read my data back. Very different situations. Write-only storage isn't terribly useful.
Anyone who thinks enterprise grade drives and consumer grade drives are the same either hasn't ever seen an enterprise drive or they haven't actually compared. Here's a little experiment for you. Get an actual enterprise grade drive and an actual consumer grade drive and place them on a scale. The fact that they don't weigh the same should tell you something about how different they really are. Consumer grade drives user higher density platters, they use different head positioning mechanisms, and they have different motors.
FWIW exactly zero of the servers in the data center I work in have 7200 RPM drives. Exactly zero of the servers in the data center I work in have 1+ TB drives. Exactly zero of the servers in the data center I work in have SATA drives. In our SAN attached arrays we have over three thousand five hundred drives, zero of them are SATA. Zero of them are 7200 RPM. If we were a small business things might be different, but to us our data matters and it being available matters.