All it will take will be one poorly designed piece of hardware (never happens, right?) with sloppy, or non-imposed force-feedback limits. Imagine a gloove that works much like the above mentioned mouse. Imagine a 'hacker' creating a program which takes advantage of this poorly designed piece of hardware to, say, crush your hand. I don't want to even think about what could happen with certain 'erotic pleasure' devices. Yowza! =)
Some subsystems of a core OS (or applications) aren't multithreaded and won't take advantage of a second (or third, or forth, etc) processor. In Windows 2000 for example (I know, BOOOOO!) the NTFS compression and EFS (Encrypting File System) subsystems are single threaded. If you are reading or writing a lot of compressed or encrypted data, you are MUCH better off having one fast processor versus two slower ones. I guess the lesson is to pick which setup is best for the job.
I can't speak for Linux, but I've got 10 Windows 2000 Advanced Server/IIS 5.0 boxes which each process over 1.25 million requests per day without breaking a sweat. The only thing that's close to being utilized it the disk sub-system. They are beefed up Compaq ProLiant 1600's.
...your own performance tests. The only way to make sure that one OS platform will out-perform another OS platform with your specific web-applications, in your specific environment, is to do the tests yourself. Usually large vendors, such as Dell, will be happy to ship you a couple of eval boxes of the same configuration for testing purposes for a couple of weeks. _Usually_ all they request you do is sign a form saying that if you break 'em you'll buy 'em, and that you'll purcahse the box at the end of the evaluation period. This isn't a big deal if you know it's the hardware you want, but need the time to choose the OS to run on it.
Also, of course, make sure you take into account other features besides performance. Security, scalability, and reliability (just to name a few) should all play a part in OS platform evaluation.
In short, run what works best in your environment.
Of course people think that their own needs are the most important. If they didn't, then they wouldn't get anything done. You can't honestly tell me that if you used the SPARC version of RedHat's distro to run your backbone, and RedHat announced that they were dropping support, you wouldn't _at least_ write them a letter expressing your concerns? The LAST THING the Open Source community needs right now is a major player dropping support for anything. This reminds me of a certain much hated company out west dropping support for a much loved platform...
...MSN Explorer automatically puts an entry in Microsoft Money and sends an e-payment of $100 to all the people who you send this too for wasting their time, I think this is ok.
I personally only use RAID 0 if th server is in a cluster, or in other words, there is another box there to pick up if a hard drive should crash. For instance, how about a MSCS Exchange setup? Two servers, two sets of data, why WOULDN'T you use RAID 0 at LEAST on the primary? You don't need all the internal fault tolerance when you have another box. Of course the cost......
About your sig... I've always heard the saying "An infinate number of monkeys could type the complete works of Shakespeare given an infinate amount of time". But isn't the Internet disproving the theory as we... type?
>...the OS itself has no software RAID facility. > SGI/IRIX achieves HA RAID using HARDWARE, There > external RAIDS are made by Clariion and simply > look like a SCSI device to the OS, you can do > the same with Linux today.
If you'd rather do software RAID then you have never worked in an enterprise environment where speed and reliability are a concern. Why somebody would use software RAID when hardware devices are available at low costs COMPLETELY blows my mind.
Windows NT has definately changed since it's release. Service Pack 4 brought many core operating system changes. Not as much as a complete kernel change by any stretch of the imagination, but saying it hasn't changed much is a false statement.
ALG
Re:Passing the savings on to the consumer
on
Practical Beowulf
·
· Score: 1
Amen. Gas prices really aren't that bad! Look at what they pay in Europe, it's about four times as much as we pay here!
Re:Man, I would love to run Beowulf on one of thes
on
Practical Beowulf
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
All it will take will be one poorly designed piece of hardware (never happens, right?) with sloppy, or non-imposed force-feedback limits. Imagine a gloove that works much like the above mentioned mouse. Imagine a 'hacker' creating a program which takes advantage of this poorly designed piece of hardware to, say, crush your hand. I don't want to even think about what could happen with certain 'erotic pleasure' devices. Yowza! =)
ALG
Some subsystems of a core OS (or applications) aren't multithreaded and won't take advantage of a second (or third, or forth, etc) processor. In Windows 2000 for example (I know, BOOOOO!) the NTFS compression and EFS (Encrypting File System) subsystems are single threaded. If you are reading or writing a lot of compressed or encrypted data, you are MUCH better off having one fast processor versus two slower ones. I guess the lesson is to pick which setup is best for the job.
ALG
I can't speak for Linux, but I've got 10 Windows 2000 Advanced Server/IIS 5.0 boxes which each process over 1.25 million requests per day without breaking a sweat. The only thing that's close to being utilized it the disk sub-system. They are beefed up Compaq ProLiant 1600's.
ALG
...your own performance tests. The only way to make sure that one OS platform will out-perform another OS platform with your specific web-applications, in your specific environment, is to do the tests yourself. Usually large vendors, such as Dell, will be happy to ship you a couple of eval boxes of the same configuration for testing purposes for a couple of weeks. _Usually_ all they request you do is sign a form saying that if you break 'em you'll buy 'em, and that you'll purcahse the box at the end of the evaluation period. This isn't a big deal if you know it's the hardware you want, but need the time to choose the OS to run on it.
Also, of course, make sure you take into account other features besides performance. Security, scalability, and reliability (just to name a few) should all play a part in OS platform evaluation.
In short, run what works best in your environment.
ALG
If Hemos posts any more stories on this bad boy, they'll have to build another one just to handle the Slashdot Effect.
ALG
Of course people think that their own needs are the most important. If they didn't, then they wouldn't get anything done. You can't honestly tell me that if you used the SPARC version of RedHat's distro to run your backbone, and RedHat announced that they were dropping support, you wouldn't _at least_ write them a letter expressing your concerns? The LAST THING the Open Source community needs right now is a major player dropping support for anything. This reminds me of a certain much hated company out west dropping support for a much loved platform...
ALG
...MSN Explorer automatically puts an entry in Microsoft Money and sends an e-payment of $100 to all the people who you send this too for wasting their time, I think this is ok.
ALG
The building across the street from where I work not only has a 13th floor, but has TWO of them; 13A and 13B.
ALG
I have a Sony DVP7000 and have had 0 problems.
My name is Abe. Why do you have the same name as me?
Abe
And I think it's funny that you're basing your whole decision on one site. Why don't you try testing it out yourself if you are really interested?
ALG
Not true. I've seen much more port aggragation then I've seen Gigabit. It's cheap and more easily supported.
ALG
I personally only use RAID 0 if th server is in a cluster, or in other words, there is another box there to pick up if a hard drive should crash. For instance, how about a MSCS Exchange setup? Two servers, two sets of data, why WOULDN'T you use RAID 0 at LEAST on the primary? You don't need all the internal fault tolerance when you have another box. Of course the cost......
ALG
Let it go man. Take a deep breath. It's just a TV show.
ALG
Of course you'd also think I'd learn how to spell "infinite"...
ALG
About your sig... I've always heard the saying "An infinate number of monkeys could type the complete works of Shakespeare given an infinate amount of time". But isn't the Internet disproving the theory as we... type?
ALG
> ...the OS itself has no software RAID facility.
> SGI/IRIX achieves HA RAID using HARDWARE, There
> external RAIDS are made by Clariion and simply
> look like a SCSI device to the OS, you can do
> the same with Linux today.
If you'd rather do software RAID then you have never worked in an enterprise environment where speed and reliability are a concern. Why somebody would use software RAID when hardware devices are available at low costs COMPLETELY blows my mind.
ALG
Windows NT has definately changed since it's release. Service Pack 4 brought many core operating system changes. Not as much as a complete kernel change by any stretch of the imagination, but saying it hasn't changed much is a false statement.
ALG
Amen. Gas prices really aren't that bad! Look at what they pay in Europe, it's about four times as much as we pay here!
Yeah, it would only take *4* billion years!!!
Amen! If I was launching a spy satellite, I would want it to be "lost" too.
ALG