Did you read what I wrote? IF you save money on the disk subsystem and use that money to buy more processor THEN you can use that additional processor to do a better job of managing your disk subsystem than the dedicated hardware could. So if you play it like I've outlined then you end up with faster disk when you need it and you also end up with more processor for other tasks when disk isn't taxing it.
I'm gonna call bullshit on this right now. General purpose processors have been dropping in price and going up in speed and core count much faster than hardware raid solutions. Take for example your average 12 port areca or 3ware or lsi raid card which will cost you 700 bucks, now instead of spending 700 on that card buy three 4 port lsi sata cards and spend the 300 bucks you save on a faster proc or one with a higher core density (4 vs 2 for example). You'll get not only faster or at least comparable performance, but you'll also get performance that scales up as you upgrade the rest of the system instead of being stuck with the perf that you get from your raid card. Another bonus is greater compatibility with different OS's as raid card drivers are traditionally notorious for having poor support in the long term and also have less tunability of the underlying logic. Finally you get better data portability, with a HW raid card you are stuck with the type of card you have used to create the array, with zfs or linux raid you are only limited to the OS you used; which sounds silly at first, but 3-4 years down the line when you are trying to find someone who stocks a defunct HW raid card to replace your burned out card you'll quickly appreciate. This is the exact same paradigm that makes things like SSL offload accelerators a poor value for a system which will be in use for more than a year or two, the more general use hardware will always outpace the performance of the purpose built stuff and by the nature of it being general use it will be far more flexible in the long run.
Interestingly enough, Sun is partnering with Toshiba to offer Open Solaris powered laptops in Q1 '09. I'm eager to see what they can cook up; as a Solaris admin and a heavy laptop user I can see the attraction to such a setup, but don't know if Sun has the chops to create something akin to the current.07+ network manager setup available on modern linux distros.
Now you are just playing dumb. I don't think anyone here honestly believes that you didn't know what you were buying and it's limitations when you bought it. It doesn't advertise having any of the features you've mentioned and it hardly seems that not supporting features you've never claimed to have is any sort of deceptive practice. If you want to hack away at your xbox to add those features then you should go right ahead and do that. Mostly it just sounds like you are doing a whole lot of bellyaching for naught.
You can do whatever you want with the console, you do own it. Likewise Microsoft owns their own game network and they can, likewise, do whatever they want with it. The problem with arguments like yours is that you don't see that inherently the rights of the consumer and the rights of the retailer are essentially the same. If you don't like the terms then don't go into a transaction.... If you want some sort of anarchistic gaming system/network then I recommend you get to work programing and designing hardware; there are like minded people out there.
Look at what netapp charges for similarly sized boxes and I'm sure you'll see this is probably at a similar price parity for size/performance. Netapp's wafl-fs is basically doing the same thing as ZFS (see netapp's lawsuit against Sun for more details). The addition of upgradeable cache ram, (something netapp only introduced to their product line with the 3040 addon cache card), and SSD based zfs disk cache should really make this system haul ass and explains a good portion of the pricing model.
At the enterprise level the purchase price of the hardware is nothing compared to the support contract cost, which is what I think will either make or break this for sun. I know that if my netapps take a shit I will have new hardware onsite inside 4 hours, my faith in sun delivering the same level of support is similar to my faith in the tooth fairy.
Oh I understand the technical reason why it isn't the way I want it to be right now, but if you scrape the surface of your explanation you see the ridiculousness of it. ZFS is a sun technology which they are touting as the coolest thing since sliced bread, however instead of patching up their OBP firmware to support direct zfs boot as they've done in the past to support new media types (sas/sata, fiber channel) and new interconnect methods (iscsi, multipathing, etc) they've taken a step backwards and replicated the "initrd/miniroot" setup that linux users has been struggling with for years. Of all the things that linux has done right over the years I find it extremely frustrating that Sun would choose this hack to implement in Solaris which feels, to me at least, quite half baked AND all but ensures that when they decide to do it the correct way further down the road Solaris admins will have the unenviable task of migrating data from disk/slice/zpool/zfs to disk/zpool/zfs; something which almost certainly will require Sun to throw a bunch more ugly hacks into their upgrade/migration software.
I'm sure others will disagree and even more others just plain don't care, but that is my.02
ZFS has known performance issues with being deployed on partitions/slices. Also it seems silly to add unneeded layering into the data stack; from my perspective the whole point of ZFS is to have an integrated raid/volume management/filesystem/snapshot/and export functionality all on top of raw disk. When I architect a storage system I only want to do it once and I want to do it "right" the first time.
any OS that locks up solid so you have to ssh in remotely and kill your login session so you can log in
If you can log in via ssh and have enough process control to kill a session then your OS didn't "lock up solid".
that makes compilation of something as simple as Quake practically impossible--installed GNU toolchain or not
A compiler toolchain isn't even part of an Operating system, but even if it was... I would hardly say that your inability to compile a game on a given OS has much to say about the valid uses for that OS especially when you follow that sentiment with your experience using it as "desktop work machines" which I wouldn't suppose would gain much additional usability from being able to easily and cleanly compile game software (unless of course your job is "quake developer"). Just my.02
For the sake of completeness I'll point out that I admin a LARGE cluster of solaris servers, but split my desktop usage mostly between various flavors of linux (general use) and windows (gaming and DRM media playback). I don't have any real desire to use solaris on any of my desktop machines until/if it supports full root ZFS on raw disk (not on parts/slices as it is currently implemented) and has a stable and recent enough hypervisor that I can reliably virtualize a windows or linux domu and have pci passthrough for my video, raid, and/or network cards.
You have got to be trolling now. Making a logical argument is not necessary for your conclusion to be correct. I think he was saying that your argument doesn't have a chain of logical deductive reasoning. As to whether or not he (and presumably I) are ignorant of the topic has no baring on whether your argument is logically sound.
In propositional logic there is a concept known as material implication, "if A is true then B is also true; if A is false then nothing is said about B." Such that it matters if one set is a subset or a superset of the other. I.E. All cars have wheels does not mean that all things which have wheels are cars. To wit, you could point to a thing with wheels and say "this is a car" AND it very well may be a car, but if the only reason that you think it is a car is because it has wheels would be illogical since that same inductive reasoning could also have you pointing at a train or a skateboard.
Don't mistake this post as some sort of argumentative bait. I am merely trying to clarify what I understood his comment to mean. In all honesty I don't know about nor do I particularly care about webkit, safari, or OSX...
whereas Safari (and therefore WebKit) always required at least 10.2
Which is not logically equivalent to what you should have said:
whereas WebKit (and therefore Safari) always required at least 10.2
Probably just some OCD pedantry, but I agree that you did have your ipso facto backwards; in your original statement it is not clear that WebKit requires 10.2 when used in a context aside from it's integration in Safari and thusly it would not necessarily follow that WebKit would not be usable in 10.1 as would be required for it's integration in iTunes. So can we all get along now?
That is what I thought. Any reference for the claim that it isn't "legal" in bash? I've never seen it used before, but I want to know where I can expect this to work.
Don't bother to install this unless you are are a dev. The early release that they have working on the n810 is excruciatingly slow since it runs on top of the existing maemo/hildon UI on an already resource limited platform; furthermore the android install is so feature bare that it transforms a reasonably versatile little tablet into a pretty useless little screen which does almost nothing and and what is does do is doesn't do well.
There isn't any support hardware for bluetooth on any ipod, never has been. I doubt sincerely that Apple left out BT profiles because they thought people would hack a BT radio and antenna on the touch. While some people may be capable and motivated to do such a hack I doubt that enough people would be capable or motivated enough to follow their lead; certainly not enough to make any considerable dent in Apple's bottom line. It is far more likely that the data features were left out to prevent people from hacking together tethering applications for the iphone and also to attempt to limit methods by which "unblessed" files/data can get onto the phone. as far as their lack of A2DP stereo support and total lack of music over BT headset I think it boils down to Apple not wanting to have low quality audio over the headset profile besmirch their relatively good name in portable audio AND the A2DP stereo protocol is actually quite a proc heavy operation and I'd suspect that it was left out because it impacted the user experience negatively. Anyone who has toyed with A2DP on a Nokia N810 web tablet can tell you that without using the onboard ADAC hardware that A2DP is basically garbage, causing ridiculous slowdown for the entire device and providing a generally bad audio stream as well.
I understand that your comment was made in jest, but.... Nagios is a really flexible polling and alerting framework. There is nothing in nagios that makes it specifically tailored to monitoring computers or services. For example, there is no reason why you must use the HostAddress directive to hold an IP or a hostname, it could just as easily be a street address, phone number, SSN, etc... And like wise there is no need for polling to actively poll, you can just as easily configure nagios to only respond to passive updates. So, just for the sake of argument, if you really wanted to use nagios to track/control a human's actions and movements you could combine passive monitoring by having an investigator follow your target and supply them with either a phone number, email address, or website where they could submit a "check result" while at the same time you could do active monitoring by utilizing any number of GPS/cellular logging devices combined with a small analysis script with some thresholds. If you wanted you could even use the output of the gps to update the relative location of "nodes" on your status map... I believe one of the examples in the documentation has phone numbers for local pizza places used as HostAddresses and has a dial out script to check the average rings to answer for phone availability validation.
dd is just as good a tool now as it has ever been. Your arguments while valid only encompass a small subset of the use cases. Additionally you are presenting a straw man by mentioning that the data on disk isn't going to match the active database since it is kept in memory. It is just as accruate to say the same thing for ANY backup operation which uses the disk as a source; which is to say that the the "complex and service interrupting steps" of blocking new changes, flushing, and syncing will be required regardless of what tool you are using.
There is no accurate standard by which the long term actual performance and reliability of these new SSD devices are measured. I've personally burned out SLC and MLC disks in a matter of weeks by throwing large numbers of very small writes at them. The wear leveling algos don't help much and any small writes are going to hit the "write amplification factor" due to the way that flash memory has to write an entire block if even a single bit is shifted. The advice of the GP is pretty solid as atime, tmp files, and swap space are the single largest offenders of numerous sub block sized writes which are amplified by the block size of the underlying flash.
By reading any text beyond this paragraph you agree to stand on one leg while barking like a dog. Additionally the text of the following message is licensed to you only for display at a resolution of 800x600 on an LCD monitor with a diagonal measure of no less than 14 (fourteen) inches.
If you are reading this and you aren't balancing on one leg and barking like a dog you are in direct violation with the terms of the license for this piece of intellectual property. I certainly hope you aren't reading this in contradiction to the above license which you've implicitly agreed to. Anything less is a proof of your lack of respect for the rule of law, you bad bad bad person.
The way I'm reading it your argument is something like "They wrote it and if you choose to buy it the you also agree to abide by their terms." However, the way I'm looking at it is more in the terms of what they can actually expect from the terms that they've put forth and whether those terms are can actually be reasonably expected to be binding. For example, in America, the Magnusson Moss law (title 15 part 2032 and forward IIRC) basically says that if I buy something that I can retain the gurantees of the implied warranty on that product without being bound to buy service or parts from any particular entities as long as the warrantor can't prove that I've misused the product or that the parts/repairs that I've done have demonstratably caused damage to the portion of the product for which I'd wish to have repaired under that warranty.
Likewise if I use a legal obtained copy of OSX in a way that is not described as is intended I shouldn't expect that Apple will warranty or support my use of that product. At the same time, just like I can dump sugar in my own gastank, why should I be legally constrained from attempting to use it in any number of ways not explicitly defined by Apple's license. If I never intended to purchase another Apple product regardless of my purchase (or lack thereof) of OSX then Apple can't prove any damages real or otherwise from my use of their product not in accordance with their EULA. I wouldn't redistribute it as that clearly crosses some defined legal line of copyright infringement. I likewise would have no objection to reselling my copy and discontinuing my own use of it as this is a part of how I construe my rights as owner of one licensed copy of the software. Just as I can buy a car and resell that car or any other tangible item. I concede that software isn't exactly a tangible good, but I also recognize that the parallel exists in so much that my redistributing multiple copies could and likely would provide for actual harm to Apple.
I think what you are doing is making an incorrect logical jump from the rule of law's intentions and the intentions of those who would distort it's purpose to control a person's actions beyond what is reasonable. If I buy a frozen pizza and the writing on the box only has directions for cooking it in a toaster oven, but I choose to make it in the microwave I wouldn't expect the pizza company to fix my nasty pizza; at the same time I also wouldn't expect that the pizza company would have any legal right to constrain me from using the microwave to cook it. If the package not only said that it should be made in the oven, but also said "by opening this box you agree to only put this pizza in the oven with the intention of using it to satisfy the hunger of a single human." I would feel exactly the same about making it in the microwave and sharing the resultant soggy mess with my dog as I feel about opening an OSX retail box and sticking the DVD in any brand/make/model of computer I wanted. And just like the pizza company putting an undue restriction in it's EULA I would feel that Apple would have a hard time enforcing their arbitrary restrictions in any sort of civil legal action against me without first proving that they suffered a damage as a result of my actions.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read what I wrote? IF you save money on the disk subsystem and use that money to buy more processor THEN you can use that additional processor to do a better job of managing your disk subsystem than the dedicated hardware could. So if you play it like I've outlined then you end up with faster disk when you need it and you also end up with more processor for other tasks when disk isn't taxing it.
I'm gonna call bullshit on this right now. General purpose processors have been dropping in price and going up in speed and core count much faster than hardware raid solutions. Take for example your average 12 port areca or 3ware or lsi raid card which will cost you 700 bucks, now instead of spending 700 on that card buy three 4 port lsi sata cards and spend the 300 bucks you save on a faster proc or one with a higher core density (4 vs 2 for example). You'll get not only faster or at least comparable performance, but you'll also get performance that scales up as you upgrade the rest of the system instead of being stuck with the perf that you get from your raid card. Another bonus is greater compatibility with different OS's as raid card drivers are traditionally notorious for having poor support in the long term and also have less tunability of the underlying logic. Finally you get better data portability, with a HW raid card you are stuck with the type of card you have used to create the array, with zfs or linux raid you are only limited to the OS you used; which sounds silly at first, but 3-4 years down the line when you are trying to find someone who stocks a defunct HW raid card to replace your burned out card you'll quickly appreciate. This is the exact same paradigm that makes things like SSL offload accelerators a poor value for a system which will be in use for more than a year or two, the more general use hardware will always outpace the performance of the purpose built stuff and by the nature of it being general use it will be far more flexible in the long run.
You might be interested to try out beagle on linux, it provides a very robust deep indexing service similar to that provided in OSX or Vista.
Interestingly enough, Sun is partnering with Toshiba to offer Open Solaris powered laptops in Q1 '09. I'm eager to see what they can cook up; as a Solaris admin and a heavy laptop user I can see the attraction to such a setup, but don't know if Sun has the chops to create something akin to the current .07+ network manager setup available on modern linux distros.
Now you are just playing dumb. I don't think anyone here honestly believes that you didn't know what you were buying and it's limitations when you bought it. It doesn't advertise having any of the features you've mentioned and it hardly seems that not supporting features you've never claimed to have is any sort of deceptive practice. If you want to hack away at your xbox to add those features then you should go right ahead and do that. Mostly it just sounds like you are doing a whole lot of bellyaching for naught.
You can do whatever you want with the console, you do own it. Likewise Microsoft owns their own game network and they can, likewise, do whatever they want with it. The problem with arguments like yours is that you don't see that inherently the rights of the consumer and the rights of the retailer are essentially the same. If you don't like the terms then don't go into a transaction.... If you want some sort of anarchistic gaming system/network then I recommend you get to work programing and designing hardware; there are like minded people out there.
I always used $(( arg op arg )) to do int. math in bash. Is there any difference in the two methods?
At the enterprise level the purchase price of the hardware is nothing compared to the support contract cost, which is what I think will either make or break this for sun. I know that if my netapps take a shit I will have new hardware onsite inside 4 hours, my faith in sun delivering the same level of support is similar to my faith in the tooth fairy.
You ever tried to raise a family, pay the bills, ... ah fuck never mind...
I'm sure others will disagree and even more others just plain don't care, but that is my .02
ZFS has known performance issues with being deployed on partitions/slices. Also it seems silly to add unneeded layering into the data stack; from my perspective the whole point of ZFS is to have an integrated raid/volume management/filesystem/snapshot/and export functionality all on top of raw disk. When I architect a storage system I only want to do it once and I want to do it "right" the first time.
any OS that locks up solid so you have to ssh in remotely and kill your login session so you can log in
If you can log in via ssh and have enough process control to kill a session then your OS didn't "lock up solid".
that makes compilation of something as simple as Quake practically impossible--installed GNU toolchain or not
A compiler toolchain isn't even part of an Operating system, but even if it was... I would hardly say that your inability to compile a game on a given OS has much to say about the valid uses for that OS especially when you follow that sentiment with your experience using it as "desktop work machines" which I wouldn't suppose would gain much additional usability from being able to easily and cleanly compile game software (unless of course your job is "quake developer"). Just my .02
For the sake of completeness I'll point out that I admin a LARGE cluster of solaris servers, but split my desktop usage mostly between various flavors of linux (general use) and windows (gaming and DRM media playback). I don't have any real desire to use solaris on any of my desktop machines until/if it supports full root ZFS on raw disk (not on parts/slices as it is currently implemented) and has a stable and recent enough hypervisor that I can reliably virtualize a windows or linux domu and have pci passthrough for my video, raid, and/or network cards.
In propositional logic there is a concept known as material implication, "if A is true then B is also true; if A is false then nothing is said about B." Such that it matters if one set is a subset or a superset of the other. I.E. All cars have wheels does not mean that all things which have wheels are cars. To wit, you could point to a thing with wheels and say "this is a car" AND it very well may be a car, but if the only reason that you think it is a car is because it has wheels would be illogical since that same inductive reasoning could also have you pointing at a train or a skateboard.
Don't mistake this post as some sort of argumentative bait. I am merely trying to clarify what I understood his comment to mean. In all honesty I don't know about nor do I particularly care about webkit, safari, or OSX...
I just said that you used flawed logic which could be correct in this case but isn't necessarily true.
whereas Safari (and therefore WebKit) always required at least 10.2
Which is not logically equivalent to what you should have said:
whereas WebKit (and therefore Safari) always required at least 10.2
Probably just some OCD pedantry, but I agree that you did have your ipso facto backwards; in your original statement it is not clear that WebKit requires 10.2 when used in a context aside from it's integration in Safari and thusly it would not necessarily follow that WebKit would not be usable in 10.1 as would be required for it's integration in iTunes. So can we all get along now?
That is what I thought. Any reference for the claim that it isn't "legal" in bash? I've never seen it used before, but I want to know where I can expect this to work.
I've never seen a [ $[ ] ] construct before, what shell is that used in?
AFAIK this was debunked almost immediately after being claimed. The only low power radio chips in the touch are there to support wifi in the 1/2 gen and the nike+ chip in the 2nd gen.
Don't bother to install this unless you are are a dev. The early release that they have working on the n810 is excruciatingly slow since it runs on top of the existing maemo/hildon UI on an already resource limited platform; furthermore the android install is so feature bare that it transforms a reasonably versatile little tablet into a pretty useless little screen which does almost nothing and and what is does do is doesn't do well.
There isn't any support hardware for bluetooth on any ipod, never has been. I doubt sincerely that Apple left out BT profiles because they thought people would hack a BT radio and antenna on the touch. While some people may be capable and motivated to do such a hack I doubt that enough people would be capable or motivated enough to follow their lead; certainly not enough to make any considerable dent in Apple's bottom line. It is far more likely that the data features were left out to prevent people from hacking together tethering applications for the iphone and also to attempt to limit methods by which "unblessed" files/data can get onto the phone. as far as their lack of A2DP stereo support and total lack of music over BT headset I think it boils down to Apple not wanting to have low quality audio over the headset profile besmirch their relatively good name in portable audio AND the A2DP stereo protocol is actually quite a proc heavy operation and I'd suspect that it was left out because it impacted the user experience negatively. Anyone who has toyed with A2DP on a Nokia N810 web tablet can tell you that without using the onboard ADAC hardware that A2DP is basically garbage, causing ridiculous slowdown for the entire device and providing a generally bad audio stream as well.
I understand that your comment was made in jest, but.... Nagios is a really flexible polling and alerting framework. There is nothing in nagios that makes it specifically tailored to monitoring computers or services. For example, there is no reason why you must use the HostAddress directive to hold an IP or a hostname, it could just as easily be a street address, phone number, SSN, etc... And like wise there is no need for polling to actively poll, you can just as easily configure nagios to only respond to passive updates. So, just for the sake of argument, if you really wanted to use nagios to track/control a human's actions and movements you could combine passive monitoring by having an investigator follow your target and supply them with either a phone number, email address, or website where they could submit a "check result" while at the same time you could do active monitoring by utilizing any number of GPS/cellular logging devices combined with a small analysis script with some thresholds. If you wanted you could even use the output of the gps to update the relative location of "nodes" on your status map... I believe one of the examples in the documentation has phone numbers for local pizza places used as HostAddresses and has a dial out script to check the average rings to answer for phone availability validation.
dd is just as good a tool now as it has ever been. Your arguments while valid only encompass a small subset of the use cases. Additionally you are presenting a straw man by mentioning that the data on disk isn't going to match the active database since it is kept in memory. It is just as accruate to say the same thing for ANY backup operation which uses the disk as a source; which is to say that the the "complex and service interrupting steps" of blocking new changes, flushing, and syncing will be required regardless of what tool you are using.
There is no accurate standard by which the long term actual performance and reliability of these new SSD devices are measured. I've personally burned out SLC and MLC disks in a matter of weeks by throwing large numbers of very small writes at them. The wear leveling algos don't help much and any small writes are going to hit the "write amplification factor" due to the way that flash memory has to write an entire block if even a single bit is shifted. The advice of the GP is pretty solid as atime, tmp files, and swap space are the single largest offenders of numerous sub block sized writes which are amplified by the block size of the underlying flash.
By reading any text beyond this paragraph you agree to stand on one leg while barking like a dog. Additionally the text of the following message is licensed to you only for display at a resolution of 800x600 on an LCD monitor with a diagonal measure of no less than 14 (fourteen) inches.
If you are reading this and you aren't balancing on one leg and barking like a dog you are in direct violation with the terms of the license for this piece of intellectual property. I certainly hope you aren't reading this in contradiction to the above license which you've implicitly agreed to. Anything less is a proof of your lack of respect for the rule of law, you bad bad bad person.
The way I'm reading it your argument is something like "They wrote it and if you choose to buy it the you also agree to abide by their terms." However, the way I'm looking at it is more in the terms of what they can actually expect from the terms that they've put forth and whether those terms are can actually be reasonably expected to be binding. For example, in America, the Magnusson Moss law (title 15 part 2032 and forward IIRC) basically says that if I buy something that I can retain the gurantees of the implied warranty on that product without being bound to buy service or parts from any particular entities as long as the warrantor can't prove that I've misused the product or that the parts/repairs that I've done have demonstratably caused damage to the portion of the product for which I'd wish to have repaired under that warranty.
Likewise if I use a legal obtained copy of OSX in a way that is not described as is intended I shouldn't expect that Apple will warranty or support my use of that product. At the same time, just like I can dump sugar in my own gastank, why should I be legally constrained from attempting to use it in any number of ways not explicitly defined by Apple's license. If I never intended to purchase another Apple product regardless of my purchase (or lack thereof) of OSX then Apple can't prove any damages real or otherwise from my use of their product not in accordance with their EULA. I wouldn't redistribute it as that clearly crosses some defined legal line of copyright infringement. I likewise would have no objection to reselling my copy and discontinuing my own use of it as this is a part of how I construe my rights as owner of one licensed copy of the software. Just as I can buy a car and resell that car or any other tangible item. I concede that software isn't exactly a tangible good, but I also recognize that the parallel exists in so much that my redistributing multiple copies could and likely would provide for actual harm to Apple.
I think what you are doing is making an incorrect logical jump from the rule of law's intentions and the intentions of those who would distort it's purpose to control a person's actions beyond what is reasonable. If I buy a frozen pizza and the writing on the box only has directions for cooking it in a toaster oven, but I choose to make it in the microwave I wouldn't expect the pizza company to fix my nasty pizza; at the same time I also wouldn't expect that the pizza company would have any legal right to constrain me from using the microwave to cook it. If the package not only said that it should be made in the oven, but also said "by opening this box you agree to only put this pizza in the oven with the intention of using it to satisfy the hunger of a single human." I would feel exactly the same about making it in the microwave and sharing the resultant soggy mess with my dog as I feel about opening an OSX retail box and sticking the DVD in any brand/make/model of computer I wanted. And just like the pizza company putting an undue restriction in it's EULA I would feel that Apple would have a hard time enforcing their arbitrary restrictions in any sort of civil legal action against me without first proving that they suffered a damage as a result of my actions.