My small business has half a dozen Linux boxes that maintain year uptimes. The large company that I work for (100+ billion dollars in sales last year) has hundreds of Linux boxes that stay up indefinitely.
I'm sorry this is off-topic, but this sort of FUD has to be countered.
The couple of dozen Linux boxes that I directly administrate don't require administration. They just run without any tweaking or attention at all. I get to focus on the software that I want them to run. And they hang around 10-13 load, all the time, said load generated by hundreds of absolutely reliable processes.
I'm not going to comment on your inflamatory filesystem diatribe. I'll just say that Reiser has never let me down.
I'm looking for journaling on both my workstation and my servers, for about the same reasons. My servers are getting very old and crusty, and tend to overheat these days. A CPU overheat 'crash' on a busy filesystem is a Very Bad Thing, and I've lost data and corrupted databases several times because of it. My workstation tends to have the same stuff my servers do. It is, in truth, my 'development' server, so I don't like to lose data on it either.
On another note, I thought that some of the journaling file systems (including Reiser and XFS) handle small files more efficiently
Do other Slashdot readers care to comment on why Redhat didn't include Reiser as a default partition type? My impression, at least, is that Reiser is 'more mainstream' that ext3. (I can't put ext3 down by any means. I've never used it. But I believe that Reiser has been production quality longer.) To be honest, I'm rather disappointed, as are other Suse aficionados at work who have been waiting for Redhat to get a journaling FS in place.
By the way, how many Code Red hits have you all been seeing? I'm up to 309.
I work at a Fortune 20 company with a substantial Microsoft installation. Luck would have it that I work closely with the team that is attempting to deploy Active Directory for a subset of the enterprise. Because we are so large, there are one or more Microsoft people on site most of the time.
To ease the hideously complicated and error-prone process of deployment, the Microsoft folks very seriously and innocently suggested that we greatly flatten our well designed, international DNS structure. They wanted us to reduce the number of levels to two, even though we have hundreds of thousands of nodes.
What was really funny was that they just didn't get it. It seemed that, in their minds, any external, non-Microsoft controlled standard, no matter how excellent, should be bent to simplify their software's deployment. The concept of any real interoperability was completely foreign to them.
It's easy to be angry at Microsoft for their tactics and their business practices. I pitty them in many ways. As the hammers start to fall, they are truly and honestly suprised by the impacts. They just don't understand.
The real strength of Perl lay not in its technical construct, or its syntax, or even in the vast set of modules and libraries available to it. The truest strength of Perl is its culture. Larry Wall, from very early on, has tried to foster a real, positive community.
Perl6 is yet another cultural extension to Perl5. The RFC process was very messy, disorganized, and perhaps a little out-of-control. Indeed, as Larry said, he spent several months mentally thrashing as he tried to grok all of the RFC's. But that is the way he wanted it. The RFC process was a picture of a real-life war-room or think-tank.
The end result will be very exciting, I believe. The Perl6 documents, to date, have capitalized on cultural strengths of the Perl community.
Truly, Perl6 is built on the most important resource available to Larry: the huge diversity of Perl programmers all over the world. That diversity has made Perl5 a great, legendary language. I think it will make Perl6 even better. As Perl advocates, I think our best effort is in being inclusive, rather than exclusive, in our thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
My small business has half a dozen Linux boxes that maintain year uptimes. The large company that I work for (100+ billion dollars in sales last year) has hundreds of Linux boxes that stay up indefinitely.
I'm sorry this is off-topic, but this sort of FUD has to be countered.
The couple of dozen Linux boxes that I directly administrate don't require administration. They just run without any tweaking or attention at all. I get to focus on the software that I want them to run. And they hang around 10-13 load, all the time, said load generated by hundreds of absolutely reliable processes.
I'm not going to comment on your inflamatory filesystem diatribe. I'll just say that Reiser has never let me down.
I'm looking for journaling on both my workstation and my servers, for about the same reasons. My servers are getting very old and crusty, and tend to overheat these days. A CPU overheat 'crash' on a busy filesystem is a Very Bad Thing, and I've lost data and corrupted databases several times because of it. My workstation tends to have the same stuff my servers do. It is, in truth, my 'development' server, so I don't like to lose data on it either.
On another note, I thought that some of the journaling file systems (including Reiser and XFS) handle small files more efficiently
Do other Slashdot readers care to comment on why Redhat didn't include Reiser as a default partition type? My impression, at least, is that Reiser is 'more mainstream' that ext3. (I can't put ext3 down by any means. I've never used it. But I believe that Reiser has been production quality longer.) To be honest, I'm rather disappointed, as are other Suse aficionados at work who have been waiting for Redhat to get a journaling FS in place.
By the way, how many Code Red hits have you all been seeing? I'm up to 309.
I work at a Fortune 20 company with a substantial Microsoft installation. Luck would have it that I work closely with the team that is attempting to deploy Active Directory for a subset of the enterprise. Because we are so large, there are one or more Microsoft people on site most of the time.
To ease the hideously complicated and error-prone process of deployment, the Microsoft folks very seriously and innocently suggested that we greatly flatten our well designed, international DNS structure. They wanted us to reduce the number of levels to two, even though we have hundreds of thousands of nodes.
What was really funny was that they just didn't get it. It seemed that, in their minds, any external, non-Microsoft controlled standard, no matter how excellent, should be bent to simplify their software's deployment. The concept of any real interoperability was completely foreign to them.
It's easy to be angry at Microsoft for their tactics and their business practices. I pitty them in many ways. As the hammers start to fall, they are truly and honestly suprised by the impacts. They just don't understand.
The real strength of Perl lay not in its technical construct, or its syntax, or even in the vast set of modules and libraries available to it. The truest strength of Perl is its culture. Larry Wall, from very early on, has tried to foster a real, positive community.
Perl6 is yet another cultural extension to Perl5. The RFC process was very messy, disorganized, and perhaps a little out-of-control. Indeed, as Larry said, he spent several months mentally thrashing as he tried to grok all of the RFC's. But that is the way he wanted it. The RFC process was a picture of a real-life war-room or think-tank.
The end result will be very exciting, I believe. The Perl6 documents, to date, have capitalized on cultural strengths of the Perl community.
Truly, Perl6 is built on the most important resource available to Larry: the huge diversity of Perl programmers all over the world. That diversity has made Perl5 a great, legendary language. I think it will make Perl6 even better. As Perl advocates, I think our best effort is in being inclusive, rather than exclusive, in our thinking.