We did a POC with an array based upon a caching architecture. Worked well as long as the cache happened to match the working set of active transactions, unfortunately a large enough percentage of the workload lead to cache misses which killed the per transaction performance for an equivalent percentage of transactions, which had cascading effects on DB threads, app server threads, connection pools, etc.
(HSM/Tiered storage == sophisticated caching strategy. Same effects apply.)
At the end of the day caching strategies will improve performance, but if you need guarantees you can't rely on cache.
Not to mention the fact that over the last few years drive capacities have skyrocketed while drive performance has remained the same. That is, your average drive / spindle has grown from 36 GB to 72 GB to 146 GB to 300 GB to 400 GB to 600 GB, etc. while delivering a non-growing 150 IOPS per spindle.
If you have an application that has particular data accessibility requirements, you end up buying IOPS and not capacity. A recent deployment was for a database that needed 5000 IOPS with services times to remain less than 10 ms. The database is two terabytes. A simple capacity analysis would call for a handful of drives, perhaps sixteen 300 GB drives mirrored for a usable capacity of 2.4 TB. Unfortunately those sixteen drives will only be able to deliver around 800 IOPS at 10 ms per. Instead we had to configure one hundred and thirty 300 GB drives, ending up with over 21 TB of storage capacity that is about ten percent utilized.
These days anytime an analyst or storage vendor starts talking to me about thin provisioning, zero page reclaim, etc. I have to take a minute and explain to them my actual needs and that they have very little to do with gigabytes or terabytes. Usually I have to do this multiple times.
In the near future we will be moving to SSD based storage once more enterprise vendors have worked through the quirks and gained some experience.
The newspapers were given access to the material by wikileaks.
Which is pretty funny: "Hey, you guys want to see something cool? OK, go ahead but don't leak it." "Um, aren't you wikileaks? The dude who pretty much decides for himself what is to be public regardless of the wishes of the ultimate source?"
You have never done anything more than red-eye reduction in the GIMP. You calculated the framebuffer size properly, yes, but there are many problems with using that to base your estimate of memory required.
I've done plenty of graphic design, I just don't use crappy tools. If your tool requires a full size copy of what the image was before every single change, then your tool is hopelessly naive in it's implementation.
If you're going to refute my claim, then refute my claim. All you did was say "In my opinion graphics design needs lots of memory."
My point is is that 2 GB is a lot of memory. You say "10x is a 'minimum system requirement'". For commercial work, at 10 megapixel, 8 bits per channel, 1 GB of RAM provides enough space for 25x complete copies. And even at that I gave away half the total system RAM as step 1. 1.5 GB available for apps in a 2 GB RAM system is pretty normal. And even bump up your images to 16 bits per channel (RGB+A), you've got enough space for 19 full size layers/framebuffers/images.
Ah, interpolation, aka. making up data. This doesn't seem like a brilliant idea for purposes with accuracy is important.
I do acknowledge however that if your bullet is 10 mm in diameter and your target is 5 mm in diameter, you probably don't need a precise surface map of the target as long as you know where it's at within three or four mm.
You and a couple of others in this sub-thread are defining the problem backwards. As near as I can tell you're approach is to look at computer A and computer B and then to say "B is five times faster than A, therefore I need B." The correct way is to lay out your requirements: technical, financial and SLAs for delivery of your "product." Then to identify the system you need.
While it's nice to be able to cache gigabytes of data, the reality is is that 2 GB is a fuckload of memory. Say you have a 21 MP camera (a 5D Mark II for example) and want to do some imaging work. Give up 1 GB of your RAM to your OS and apps. The remaining 1 GB can hold more than six complete copies of your images at 16 bits per channel + 16 bits of alpha.If you've got 8 bits per channel then you can have twelve copies. A 10 megapixel/8 bits per channel image (sufficient for most commercial work), in that case 1 GB is enough space for twenty-five images in RAM simultaneously. For the vast majority of users that's enough. Yes, it's possible to have that not be enough, but that says more about the user than the system.
PCPro recommended the dedicated system for 'rural' use, which may have issues with internet availability.
Perhaps if you're a traveling salesman, but if you're a "rural user" who spends hours in their car every day, you know where you are and don't need a navigation system. Just comes with the living in a rural environment.
I'm not going to make assumptions about how long you've been on the internet and what not, but in case you weren't here in the early days, an open and free network is what it was. The sad fact is is that there are enough people who abused the system such that what you have today is the end result.
How about slashdot removing NGAA posts? Is that censorship? If not, why not, and why don't those same criteria apply to Apple.
The fact is Apple doesn't maintain a free and open public forum. They have forums where people can discuss Apple products, ask for help, etc. They have policies to keep things civil and relatively organized. In order to facilitate the discussion, it's beneficial for them to trim threads that get out of hand. There are currently threads there discussing the CR article. Just because some putz' rant is deleted because he opened a new thread on the same topic -- instead of posting in the existing thread -- that's not censorship.
Going further on a limb I'm also guessing this is why they would never release any of the alleged violations. In days a website similar to groklaw would be up in for everyone to review, identify and mark the source of the "violation." ie, this is a struct for the elf library specification or this is a header of a BSD library. (Remember that BSD ancestry is likely still there in large chunks)
If this paragraph is indicative of your general level of knowledge about the history of Unix, you might want to look into ELF and how it got into Unix. I can tell you this however: it didn't came from Berkeley. The various BSD derivatives got it from SysV long after the fact.
Also you might want to spend about ten more seconds checking out the PDFs at the linked site, not just the one linked by the knucklehead kdawson. It's not simply header files. There is actual code. The similarities in code flow, layout, variable names, filenames, etc. are conclusive. The linux contributor didn't implement this code clean room-style based on the specification, plainly having used the Unix implementation as the source.
You should go to the link, read the comments, find all the links to various PDFs showing the examples. I'm no fan of SCO, nor am I emotionally invested in free software politics. The PDFs provided seem pretty damning. The same filenames, the same style (one function per file), the same structure, the same code flow, the same variable names. And not simply header files. If it wasn't a cut-n-paste + ANSI-fication, it was certainly a matter of one window with unix source to read from, the other window with linux source to write. I'd say that Mr. Michael Riepe (the individual who is claiming copyright in the linux versions) has some explaining to do.
Maybe you could take your non-IE9 browser to the demo pages linked from the article you'll be able to see if they're doing something standard or something non-standard.
Rather than telling you what will happen if you go to that page in, say, Safari, I'll let you go ahead and experience it for yourself. Just think of the thrill you'll get when finding that you're totally right that MS just can't do anything to spec, or maybe you'll be thrilled to find that, OMG!!!!, they're adhering to the draft standards as they exist today.
Which do you think it is? The anticipation almost makes you want to pee, doesn't it?
(Next time spend ten seconds to find out before you shoot your mouth off and demonstrate the accuracy of the old saw: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.")
No, but I can get a pretty good idea of hiring an employee by knowing past career history and try to make an educated guess. That very risk is why most companies hesitate to hire people unless they have great work experience.
So consider this paragraph the answer to your previous post.
Slashdot Mirror
Time was when AT&T wasn't just a name purchased by Cingular.
Remember when Chris Paget defamed AT&T by making up a false story of impending litigation in a lame attempt to create some press for himself?
(That's one way it could go.)
I also heard that Chris Paget only runs Windows Me on his desktop because he thinks everything else is just dumb. That's what I heard anyway.
We did a POC with an array based upon a caching architecture. Worked well as long as the cache happened to match the working set of active transactions, unfortunately a large enough percentage of the workload lead to cache misses which killed the per transaction performance for an equivalent percentage of transactions, which had cascading effects on DB threads, app server threads, connection pools, etc.
(HSM/Tiered storage == sophisticated caching strategy. Same effects apply.)
At the end of the day caching strategies will improve performance, but if you need guarantees you can't rely on cache.
hottiehost$ find . -type f | wc -l
8433275
hottiehost$ bc
scale=3
8433275*(70/83)
7109250.825
It's just over seven million images...
Not to mention the fact that over the last few years drive capacities have skyrocketed while drive performance has remained the same. That is, your average drive / spindle has grown from 36 GB to 72 GB to 146 GB to 300 GB to 400 GB to 600 GB, etc. while delivering a non-growing 150 IOPS per spindle.
If you have an application that has particular data accessibility requirements, you end up buying IOPS and not capacity. A recent deployment was for a database that needed 5000 IOPS with services times to remain less than 10 ms. The database is two terabytes. A simple capacity analysis would call for a handful of drives, perhaps sixteen 300 GB drives mirrored for a usable capacity of 2.4 TB. Unfortunately those sixteen drives will only be able to deliver around 800 IOPS at 10 ms per. Instead we had to configure one hundred and thirty 300 GB drives, ending up with over 21 TB of storage capacity that is about ten percent utilized.
These days anytime an analyst or storage vendor starts talking to me about thin provisioning, zero page reclaim, etc. I have to take a minute and explain to them my actual needs and that they have very little to do with gigabytes or terabytes. Usually I have to do this multiple times.
In the near future we will be moving to SSD based storage once more enterprise vendors have worked through the quirks and gained some experience.
Which is pretty funny: "Hey, you guys want to see something cool? OK, go ahead but don't leak it." "Um, aren't you wikileaks? The dude who pretty much decides for himself what is to be public regardless of the wishes of the ultimate source?"
I've done plenty of graphic design, I just don't use crappy tools. If your tool requires a full size copy of what the image was before every single change, then your tool is hopelessly naive in it's implementation.
If you're going to refute my claim, then refute my claim. All you did was say "In my opinion graphics design needs lots of memory."
My point is is that 2 GB is a lot of memory. You say "10x is a 'minimum system requirement'". For commercial work, at 10 megapixel, 8 bits per channel, 1 GB of RAM provides enough space for 25x complete copies. And even at that I gave away half the total system RAM as step 1. 1.5 GB available for apps in a 2 GB RAM system is pretty normal. And even bump up your images to 16 bits per channel (RGB+A), you've got enough space for 19 full size layers/framebuffers/images.
Perhaps you should be more informed before you spout off.
Ah, interpolation, aka. making up data. This doesn't seem like a brilliant idea for purposes with accuracy is important.
I do acknowledge however that if your bullet is 10 mm in diameter and your target is 5 mm in diameter, you probably don't need a precise surface map of the target as long as you know where it's at within three or four mm.
You and a couple of others in this sub-thread are defining the problem backwards. As near as I can tell you're approach is to look at computer A and computer B and then to say "B is five times faster than A, therefore I need B." The correct way is to lay out your requirements: technical, financial and SLAs for delivery of your "product." Then to identify the system you need.
While it's nice to be able to cache gigabytes of data, the reality is is that 2 GB is a fuckload of memory. Say you have a 21 MP camera (a 5D Mark II for example) and want to do some imaging work. Give up 1 GB of your RAM to your OS and apps. The remaining 1 GB can hold more than six complete copies of your images at 16 bits per channel + 16 bits of alpha.If you've got 8 bits per channel then you can have twelve copies. A 10 megapixel/8 bits per channel image (sufficient for most commercial work), in that case 1 GB is enough space for twenty-five images in RAM simultaneously. For the vast majority of users that's enough. Yes, it's possible to have that not be enough, but that says more about the user than the system.
Didn't Google do this? Gave every employee a G1 with the suggestion that they might want to make apps for it? And called it a Christmas bonus as well?
Perhaps if you're a traveling salesman, but if you're a "rural user" who spends hours in their car every day, you know where you are and don't need a navigation system. Just comes with the living in a rural environment.
I'm not going to make assumptions about how long you've been on the internet and what not, but in case you weren't here in the early days, an open and free network is what it was. The sad fact is is that there are enough people who abused the system such that what you have today is the end result.
This was an exploratory well. It was never meant to produce.
Mine is less than half of yours and I registered my account:
And if this web page is at all trustworthy, then anyone claiming fifteen years is full of it.
Slashdot goes beyond moderation and actively removes posts, perhaps not GNAA, but it does happen.
How about slashdot removing NGAA posts? Is that censorship? If not, why not, and why don't those same criteria apply to Apple.
The fact is Apple doesn't maintain a free and open public forum. They have forums where people can discuss Apple products, ask for help, etc. They have policies to keep things civil and relatively organized. In order to facilitate the discussion, it's beneficial for them to trim threads that get out of hand. There are currently threads there discussing the CR article. Just because some putz' rant is deleted because he opened a new thread on the same topic -- instead of posting in the existing thread -- that's not censorship.
No they didn't. ELF originated in AT&T SysV Unix.
fubar.
snafu. (situation normal, all effed up.)
I'll save you a place on the porch at the old folks home, for when you get here.
Why i,j,k and not a,b,c?
Yes, foo, bar, baz, are the traditional metavariables. Now tell me why we use i,j,k... so often.
If this paragraph is indicative of your general level of knowledge about the history of Unix, you might want to look into ELF and how it got into Unix. I can tell you this however: it didn't came from Berkeley. The various BSD derivatives got it from SysV long after the fact.
Also you might want to spend about ten more seconds checking out the PDFs at the linked site, not just the one linked by the knucklehead kdawson. It's not simply header files. There is actual code. The similarities in code flow, layout, variable names, filenames, etc. are conclusive. The linux contributor didn't implement this code clean room-style based on the specification, plainly having used the Unix implementation as the source.
You should go to the link, read the comments, find all the links to various PDFs showing the examples. I'm no fan of SCO, nor am I emotionally invested in free software politics. The PDFs provided seem pretty damning. The same filenames, the same style (one function per file), the same structure, the same code flow, the same variable names. And not simply header files. If it wasn't a cut-n-paste + ANSI-fication, it was certainly a matter of one window with unix source to read from, the other window with linux source to write. I'd say that Mr. Michael Riepe (the individual who is claiming copyright in the linux versions) has some explaining to do.
Maybe you could take your non-IE9 browser to the demo pages linked from the article you'll be able to see if they're doing something standard or something non-standard.
Here's a link:
http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Graphics/DeepZoom/Default.html
Rather than telling you what will happen if you go to that page in, say, Safari, I'll let you go ahead and experience it for yourself. Just think of the thrill you'll get when finding that you're totally right that MS just can't do anything to spec, or maybe you'll be thrilled to find that, OMG!!!!, they're adhering to the draft standards as they exist today.
Which do you think it is? The anticipation almost makes you want to pee, doesn't it?
(Next time spend ten seconds to find out before you shoot your mouth off and demonstrate the accuracy of the old saw: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.")
So consider this paragraph the answer to your previous post.