Cooling your server room in the winter and summer.
on
Home Server Rooms?
·
· Score: 1
Hi!
Easy task if you do it right, and (more) economical than normally thought...
Use an outside wall accessible room
Install a decently powerful, degree settable AC unit for that room only.
Set up two blower units that are thermostatically controlled - one blowing out (top of room), and the other blowing in (other end of room). The one blowing in should have an electronic damper that can be controlled by thermostat (along with it's blower fan). When outside temperature is 10-20 degrees below *desired*inside temp, it blows the cooler air in. if the out venting one can be placed above the biggest heat generators (UPS's, monitors and drive arrays), they should be used to blow the hot air out, causing decent cirulation in the room similar to what IBM does inside their Intellistation and Netfinity server cases.
The AC unit should be set at proper temperature. It will not come on during the winter when outside air is cool enough to cool the room, thus saving that energy.
The dampers and blowers cycling inside air into the room will need to be adjusted based off how much heat you generate. The more heat, the bigger the difference between desired temp and outside temp. We've found on high heat generating scenarios, you want 15 or more degree differences (the key is you dont want to be blowing in air marginally cooler than wanted while the AC is running or the AC is cooling that much more air volume (whatever the fans can blow in, plus the air volume of the room)).
If you are looking for a non-Windows solution, then try the upcoming release of eComStation 1.1 with VirtualPC included. I forget what that particular release name is (they have releases tailored to various needs), but it will run all your Win Apps, in your choice of WinOS (you need to have that copy of Windows to use with it), as well as Linux, and run them all within eComStation, allowing you to run DOS, Win3.X, *nix X86 apps (via HOB X11 or XFree86), Linux and Win9X/NT/2K/XP apps all under the same OS - all at once if need be - in addition to native versions of MySQL, Apache 2.X, PHP, Perl, REXX, etc. It's been demoed, it's been tested, it does work. Unless something more concrete (and at as high a level) comes up - and this Lindows statement doesnt qualify in that regard for me - I'm moving most of my systems to eComStation.
I sent this to Newsbytes Tuesday - no response
yet.
To: Chris Wysopal
Re: Recent comment to newsbytes and other
news services.
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/172878.html
In a statement attributed to you on newsbytes,
they claim you said that malicious hackers
would need control of an httpd server to use
this exploit. This is very untrue. Using this
exploit is far simpler than that.
All a malicious hacker would need is a normal
web account with any ISP. Normal web accounts
generally allow cgi-bin access for that account.
A simple cgi script could utilize this exploit,
as all cgi scripts that communicate with tbe
browser, by design, should send headers. This
isnt usually *necessary* as most web servers
generally will create the header as needed
(assuming it understands the content generated
by the cgi script), but is how cgi works.
If, for example, you have ever been to a site
where an image is being displayed as plain text,
or a download of an exe file or zip file or
other understood format is garbled, *when those
files are sent via script*, it is often because
the script creator forgot to send a header before
the data and the web server treats and sends the
file as plain text.
Thus, to use this exploit, anyone with a real,
full web account with any decent ISP would simply
need some scripting knowledge (being a "malicious
hacker" sort of implies that), and knowledge of the
appropriate header to send.
Harik said:
>Loss #5: michael, for posting this without having any clue.
>News for Nerds, stuff that matters. One tends to wish
>the people POSTING IT actually had any idea what
>these strange words (like FTP, UDP, TCP) mean.
A well made point about the "technical" article on their site as well. They oddly cite no realy technical information, or anything that would in any way point to any true advantages, but use such acronyms and other TCP/IP terms that the general user wont understand "willy-nilly" to try to impress people (and maybe make them forget the true lack of techincal merit their information has).
- Robert
Sorry if my last post didnt clearly indicate it was in response to the author's question about a previous company/software package that claimed to do something similar via multiple connections. I intended this as a 2 post reply so anyone who wanted to could respond to either part of my comments about either part of his post.
As for the current "new" method of decreasing download speed... it seems to me it's called file compression. Isnt that what gzip on a server does? Compress the file using a "mathematical equation", and then the client browser decompresses it on their end using "the computational power of standard PC processors" to do it? And as with a zipped or gzipped file, technically, none of the data is ever transmitted. Instead, a mathematical algorithm is used to compress and decompress saving transmit time.
Sounds to me like a fancy new name for a possibly new method of compressing data.
Of course, as the article on their website is lacking in technical information, who knows? But that's where my money would be. If not, I'd say it's a combination of that, plus commonly sent compressed data shortcuts... what I mean by that is, they could use something similar to a macro on a word processor. They could define small "macro" tags that would define certain byte sequences that they determined to frequently appear in a file, and send that "macro" along with the other compressed data. Of course, it's just another form of compression if they implement it that way as well...
The program or company that (I know of) offered a program to do this is called Download Accelerator.
It works when the following criteria exists
(1) You are not already maxing out your connection.
(2) The server is limiting your bandwidth
(happens if it load balances or just limits each connection)
(3) (or as opposed to #2) there are more than one server in their server pool.
What the program does is set an offset and connect to the same server (assuming there is only one web server to request from) or from multiple servers, and retrieve different portions of the file.
Thus, if you were not at your max bandwidth downloading normally, you will get closer to it. Simple math. If there are 100 users on a server that can support 100Mb/s, you are getting 1Mb/s. If you spawn 10 connections, you get 9Mb/s (roughly). IF you are at your max bandwidth though, or the server you are connecting to is sending as fast as possible, you are actually increasing the amount of time it will take to download the file.
Also, these programs (to date, the ones we have experienced on our servers) do not take into account a single web server that is not limiting bandwidth, and in not doing so, consume the resources of multiple users for single files. Too many people using them, and it becomes a web administrators' nightmare. While on a single page, 1-4 connections will generally serve a client's requests, you now have sometimes many times that for a single file.
Additionally, as well as server resources being comsumed as much as 20 times higher than normal for a single user, it also means that (on servers that balance speed per connection) your other users are suffering slower downloads due to it.
We will soon be utilizing some custom scripts on our servers to prevent such actions from occurring (if a connection to a file exists, they will refuse future connections until that connection completes, or sever the original).
Why does everyone seem to think that MS designs this stuff or wrote the original code to any of their software? They havent. Windows wasnt written entirely by them (OS/2 16 bit code, DOS code and their GUI code). IE was written by Spry (which is why AOL got stuck with IE when MS bought Spry's code), Outlook, Word, Access, Powerpoint... not written by MS either. NT... nope. DOS... not even. Edlin - yep! They wrote it. The BASIC interpreter... most of it. The voice stuff that never made it into WinME? Nope. The neato GUI enhancements (a la Stardock) in XP? Nope. The Xbox? heh - yeah right... at least Sega will make some money off that one.
MS buys, borrows or steals the software, and then hires clueless programmers to write fixes, add-ons and what amounts to kludges to get the software to do more.
I have been using OS/2 since v2.0 Beta - 1991 or 1992. As for the rest of your post, I think you need to research the situation a little more (perhaps just read the threads on/. for this article even).
OS/2 and eCS can run an increasing amount of Win32 apps *natively* via Odin. OS/2 and eCS can run many *nix apps that have either been recompiled for OS/2 or for XFree/86 or HoB. Someplace inside it is supposedly full POSIX compliance (according to some old IBM brochures... though whether it is still in there is the question (not that it is needed anymore with X and HoB).
As for what you can get from eCS that you cant from Linux or FreeBSD... with VirtualPC, full Win32 (or virtually any other PC OS) support, as well as a better threading model (ie: also handles more network traffic with the right apps), better hardware support than one, and as good as for the other, and support for 64 CPUs.
So I guess what you can get from it, all depends on what you want from it. For me, my OS choice depends on what it is for. My game machine is Win98. My graphics machines are Mac's. My servers are Warp or eCS.
For what it comes with - even without the bundled software, commercially there is no equivalent.
>Want Apache httpd to do your web serving, Oracle for
>your database, and a unix ftpd, you'd be able to do
>it from one box, out of the box. That alone is worth
>quite a bit of money to me.
OS/2 has done all of this for years, without VPC or Hob... most *nix apps can be recompiled for OS/2 (and many such as Apache, and various other ___d's as well like BIND and some ftpd's already have been). Also, there were OS/2 Oracle releases, though I always preferred DB/2 or MySQL for Warp.
Looks like it's been time for you to consider OS/2 (or better, eCS) for quite some time!;-)
It's more than a "you have to pay for it" issue...
WarpSMP and WarpUNI use different kernels (for one). While a WarpSMP machine can run with 1 (to 64) CPU(s), the kernel was designed for 2 or more. This was a high end server option that came only in Warp Server 4 (Advanced?) and Warp Server for e-Business - to the tune of $1200+ per license.
SS seems to have accomplished quite a feat in getting IBM to allow them to include the SMP base in their eCS Pro release for so little. Especially when you compare it to an 8 way Win2000 or WinXP solution (which is the highest Win2K and XP go until you go to clusters, where the highest is currently 32 CPU 4 node 8 way - compared to eCS that will do 64 way - and with DSS or Vinca can do 4 or 2 node 64 way). So, the price for the SMP kernel and related code is very very low - when compared to the closest XP solution or even the WSeB solution the SMP base is from.
Is it worth it? Damn yeah! My 3 SMP machines FLY. Warp manages 90-95% utilization. Add a truly multithreaded app (like DominoGo WebServer and hopefully the new multithreaded Apache for OS/2) and watch your poor machine beg for something to do. Certain tasks seem faster on 2 CPU's than on one of twice the MHz... probably due to thread scheduling or small time execution threads slipping in on the second CPU that would otherwise be lagging waiting on the first...
>Now if only Stardock had aquired it...
Dunno... Stardock had some interesting ideas for where they wanted to take it... but honestly, I think Serenity Systems seems to have a better plan - or in my opinion, more realistic.
I have been watching their posts in the groups and forums for 2 years now, and I've noticed that the puzzle they are building is quite big. More and more, new pieces are appearing, making the whole of it appear much better.
Serenity seems to be building a very strong base for their business plans, and offering, piece by piece, a lot of incentive for businesses to consider eCS. I noticed that with their plans for good document support (for things such as Office documents) - as well as their inclusion of choice in the matter... followed by their plans for the demo CD, and then most recently HobLink and VirtualPC in eCS.
Yet, the releases each come tailored to what the user needs. You dont have to buy the house to get the kitchen sink.
There's a lot more, on the business level, that I have seen them mention (and probably tons more than that which hasnt been mention in the public forums) that is all along that same path of creating and/or entering markets that eCS can be viable in (as oppsed to going after the home desktop for instance) To me it's amazing... it's (their plans) seem a lot like OS/2 itself... ultimately scalable to the sky (like Warp's seldom used 64 way CPU support, or 4 node 64 way (yes 256CPUs!!!!) support), but starting at a reasonable level that is realistic (just like Warp's ability to run on a 486 - even today).
So, while Stardock may have had some great plans, I think SS's are more realistic, and am anxious to see how things progress.
Oliver also forgot to mention that they are the ones who have brought Warp 4 and eCS the Flash 4 plugin ported or re-written from Macromedia's code and soon Flash 5. If these plugins and their work on Project Odin are any indication, I am expecting their completed/ported version of VirtualPC to be quite good. Flash 4 on my P Pro 180MHz machine performs as well as on my 266MHz Pentium II Win98 machine.
Documentation for it (and thusly the OS/2 API) can be found on the CD... *DO NOT PRINT IT UNLESS* you have a fast printer and LOTS of paper. Once all the documentation is printed, you will have roughly 500 pounds of docs. No, I am not joking.
A printer such as (or comparable to) the IBM InfoPrint (with duplexer) is ideal for such things - just remember to empty the output tray as needed or be prepared to pick up lotsa paper from the floor;-)
If you can find another 24MB of RAM, any 66MHz or up 486 will run Warp 4 with TCPIP and NetBIOS quite nicely (and even pretty quickly). If you can suffer a little sluggish (but still capable of NetBIOS, TCPIP, MySQL and more) that same hardware will run Warp Server for e-Business (my "sluggish" machine is actually a 33MHz 486 with 32MB).
So, figured, just in case you have a little more RAM for the old machine and Warp 4, you might want to dropping it in there and using Warp 4.
Well, problem with patching MS software and OS's is that often, you dont get the chance to patch it till it's been hacked, attacked, or taken down. So many exploits popping up that "nobody" had knowledge of, that it is impossible to be up to date on your patches (inotherwords, patch your machine every day and you will still get bitten if your machine happens to be one targetted for such attacks, because the patches, for the most part, are "after the fact" remedies...)
In addition, the part mentioned by someone about holding MS liable - why not? MS knew about the holes that allowed Code Red. There are notices and documents and emails online dated 1-2 years before hand warning them of the problems. They still refused to fix much of the issues until after the fact. Some of these issues still persist in IIS and even XP. It's about time someone tried to hold them liable. If a car company sold you a car they knew would blow up if you... *used it*... (ie: did with the product what you were supposed to do), they'd be sued for mucho dinero... why has MS been held to a different legal scale for what can be business threatening bugs, exploits and holes they have been made fully aware of over the years?
Major difference this time is that with Project Odin, comapnies that start to make an inroad onto OS/2 via VirtualPC can "recompile" their apps to be OS/2 native, with little or no modifications. In addition, they can add support for OS/2 only technologies like it's SOM and other OO technologies, as well as it's cross integration from C++ to REXX to C++ to every system and network service that is a part of OS/2 meaning immense levels of "power" on the parts of the programmers with little investment in extra coding to produce a nearly code level identical package that is OS/2 native.
That means if eComstation and/or OS/2 gain *any* market share, it becomes a very viable place to expend such non-effort... inotherwords, if it will cost you nothing, (or close to it with some OS/2 specific modification) to release an OS/2 "native" app, then why not? It's more money for near zero outlay.
This helps break the cycle that was pointed out by you - which indeed did happen. The reason I see it as something developers would consider, is that if there are a halfway decent number of eComStation sales (and the numbers are steadily growing), eCS users will almost always invariably buy an eCS version of an app before a Win version that runs under VPC or Odin - especially since it will be feature compatible - and may even have a few OS/2 only features.
The few things that wont (wihtout effort) get translated over in such a "recompile" are the ridiculous object-orientedness nature of a true OS/2 app... for instance, most people dont realize, that on a true OS/2 app (written with say IBM VAC++ for OS/2 or even written in REXX using GPFRexx), even "dialog text" is really just another object... that if you see it on the screen it's an object... if you dont see it and the program executes it, it's probably an object.
The beauty of course, is (for instance on an OS/2 system's scheme - or look and feel), making a change to an object type instantaneously changes all objects based off that object type - no "Apply" button or reboot. Thus, it's mostly things OS/2 users dont care about... yeah, it's neat being able to have every text line on a dialog box a different font, or being able to change them all at once by changing their default container's properties... but it isnt needed in 95% of the programs out there... so a recompiled Win app will be as fast as (and in some cases faster) and as stable as any other OS/2 app.
So, I think I've explained the incentive to developers... ("if I pick up even 500 new sales for doing nothing, it's worth it" - and with eCS's sales, that's an easy figure for most mainstream Win apps), as well as how in doing so, it promotes more and more OS/2 app development. If Company X makes a profit off of selling eCS/Warp apps, then why not spend a little more to make a bigger profit by adding some features OS/2 users expect out of an eCS or OS/2 app (like better drag-n-drop support, and more object orientedness / SOM support, or voice support).
Eventually, I would expect that Win users, seeing their apps run natively under eCS (an OS that will still run regular Win apps without issue)but as fast or faster, and without the tons of issues a Win user goes through (virus of the week for instance, crash of the day as another example), it's *possible*that they may thus consider eCS.
And the cycle starts - or maybe it doesnt.
After all, it's all a matter of hype... and though WinXP is DOG SLOW - especially compared to eCS or Linux - much less to Win9X, people believe the hype, and companies like CompUSA are paid to shovel it down people's throats as "the best there is!". Of course, MS can prove that XP is faster than Win9X on new hardware - but that's only because Win9X wasnt designed for new hardware. It still has timing issues and RAM handling issues based off the (now compiled into the "kernal" of Win9X) legacy DOS memory and bus handling code... same issue that prevented Win95 from running on 100MHz FSB machines (for which a kludge was built into 98 to address).
So, is it hype that will win? I dont know. I'll stick with Warp and eCS (until IBM breaks in and takes my CD's back and reformats my machine)... and Linux here and there when I get the time... and MacOS on our few MACs... It's great having a server that runs our whole network, DNS, email, FTP, MySQL, backup web, time and more being only a P133 with 48MB of RAM. I dont like wasting hardware... new or old... so eCS, Warp and Linux for me - it's not "OS evangelism"... it's expecting to be able to use what I buy... if I get a car with a 500hp engine, i dont want to be stuck doing 40mph because the transmission manufacturer they subbed out the work to doesnt know how to make a tranny.
Just my thoughts... only time will tell...
- Robert
I am not sure of the point of this article. It seems to go on about things we all already know so well. Currently Win__ is the dominant PC OS, yet, OS/2 Warp, eComStation, Linux and the MacOS are better... technology not relevant to market leadership.
This is entirely the same with the game box market. What's in the XBoX? Ask Sega. Anyone who hasnt realized who makes the XBoX by now doesnt deserve to be called a console gamesenthusiast. Or perhaps it is just coincidental that the design (including the entirely asthetic things like the triangles and button lettering) are so similar to the DreamCast (as well as so much along the same specs as the planned DreamCast successor that Sega dropped - also coincidentally shortly after MS announced XBoX)...
So, the question is all a matter of marketing - as always. There was an article in (I think) "XBox Magazine" a while back (the mag that claims it isnt in any way biased towards the XBox... btw) stating that there will only be a few hundred thousand units produced per month - which is supposed to be about a tenth of Sony's plans for PS2... this is the only thing I can think of that would change whether or not marketing has the (normal) affect on such things.
This is something I am truly curious about - is Sega going to make so few XBox's for MS? Or is the article wrong? If the article was correct, then it's probably a PS2, GameCube, XBox (in that order) world, based off name recognition and marketing... otherwise, MS, through Sega's efforts, I forsee being number 1 in the game console world.
If anyone has any information pointing to someone else making the XBox, I'd be very interested in that as well... though I dont think anything legitimate exists stating otherwise.. and *somebody* had to make it since MS doesnt make hardware, doesnt design hardware, and doesnt write software (at least not since Edlin).
Robert
Slashdot Mirror
Easy task if you do it right, and (more) economical than normally thought...
Use an outside wall accessible room
Install a decently powerful, degree settable AC unit for that room only.
Set up two blower units that are thermostatically controlled - one blowing out (top of room), and the other blowing in (other end of room). The one blowing in should have an electronic damper that can be controlled by thermostat (along with it's blower fan). When outside temperature is 10-20 degrees below *desired*inside temp, it blows the cooler air in. if the out venting one can be placed above the biggest heat generators (UPS's, monitors and drive arrays), they should be used to blow the hot air out, causing decent cirulation in the room similar to what IBM does inside their Intellistation and Netfinity server cases.
The AC unit should be set at proper temperature. It will not come on during the winter when outside air is cool enough to cool the room, thus saving that energy.
The dampers and blowers cycling inside air into the room will need to be adjusted based off how much heat you generate. The more heat, the bigger the difference between desired temp and outside temp. We've found on high heat generating scenarios, you want 15 or more degree differences (the key is you dont want to be blowing in air marginally cooler than wanted while the AC is running or the AC is cooling that much more air volume (whatever the fans can blow in, plus the air volume of the room)).
Make sense? I hope so... if not, email me...
Rob
- Robert
To: Chris Wysopal
Re: Recent comment to newsbytes and other news services.
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/172878.html
In a statement attributed to you on newsbytes, they claim you said that malicious hackers would need control of an httpd server to use this exploit. This is very untrue. Using this exploit is far simpler than that.
All a malicious hacker would need is a normal web account with any ISP. Normal web accounts generally allow cgi-bin access for that account. A simple cgi script could utilize this exploit, as all cgi scripts that communicate with tbe browser, by design, should send headers. This isnt usually *necessary* as most web servers generally will create the header as needed (assuming it understands the content generated by the cgi script), but is how cgi works.
If, for example, you have ever been to a site where an image is being displayed as plain text, or a download of an exe file or zip file or other understood format is garbled, *when those files are sent via script*, it is often because the script creator forgot to send a header before the data and the web server treats and sends the file as plain text.
Thus, to use this exploit, anyone with a real, full web account with any decent ISP would simply need some scripting knowledge (being a "malicious hacker" sort of implies that), and knowledge of the appropriate header to send.
Our best,
Robert
cc: SlashDot
NewsBytes/Brian McWilliams
Harik said: >Loss #5: michael, for posting this without having any clue. >News for Nerds, stuff that matters. One tends to wish >the people POSTING IT actually had any idea what >these strange words (like FTP, UDP, TCP) mean. A well made point about the "technical" article on their site as well. They oddly cite no realy technical information, or anything that would in any way point to any true advantages, but use such acronyms and other TCP/IP terms that the general user wont understand "willy-nilly" to try to impress people (and maybe make them forget the true lack of techincal merit their information has). - Robert
As for the current "new" method of decreasing download speed... it seems to me it's called file compression. Isnt that what gzip on a server does? Compress the file using a "mathematical equation", and then the client browser decompresses it on their end using "the computational power of standard PC processors" to do it? And as with a zipped or gzipped file, technically, none of the data is ever transmitted. Instead, a mathematical algorithm is used to compress and decompress saving transmit time.
Sounds to me like a fancy new name for a possibly new method of compressing data.
Of course, as the article on their website is lacking in technical information, who knows? But that's where my money would be. If not, I'd say it's a combination of that, plus commonly sent compressed data shortcuts... what I mean by that is, they could use something similar to a macro on a word processor. They could define small "macro" tags that would define certain byte sequences that they determined to frequently appear in a file, and send that "macro" along with the other compressed data. Of course, it's just another form of compression if they implement it that way as well...
- Robert
It works when the following criteria exists
(1) You are not already maxing out your connection.
(2) The server is limiting your bandwidth
(happens if it load balances or just limits each connection)
(3) (or as opposed to #2) there are more than one server in their server pool.
What the program does is set an offset and connect to the same server (assuming there is only one web server to request from) or from multiple servers, and retrieve different portions of the file.
Thus, if you were not at your max bandwidth downloading normally, you will get closer to it. Simple math. If there are 100 users on a server that can support 100Mb/s, you are getting 1Mb/s. If you spawn 10 connections, you get 9Mb/s (roughly). IF you are at your max bandwidth though, or the server you are connecting to is sending as fast as possible, you are actually increasing the amount of time it will take to download the file.
Also, these programs (to date, the ones we have experienced on our servers) do not take into account a single web server that is not limiting bandwidth, and in not doing so, consume the resources of multiple users for single files. Too many people using them, and it becomes a web administrators' nightmare. While on a single page, 1-4 connections will generally serve a client's requests, you now have sometimes many times that for a single file.
Additionally, as well as server resources being comsumed as much as 20 times higher than normal for a single user, it also means that (on servers that balance speed per connection) your other users are suffering slower downloads due to it.
We will soon be utilizing some custom scripts on our servers to prevent such actions from occurring (if a connection to a file exists, they will refuse future connections until that connection completes, or sever the original).
- Robert
MS buys, borrows or steals the software, and then hires clueless programmers to write fixes, add-ons and what amounts to kludges to get the software to do more.
OS/2 and eCS can run an increasing amount of Win32 apps *natively* via Odin. OS/2 and eCS can run many *nix apps that have either been recompiled for OS/2 or for XFree/86 or HoB. Someplace inside it is supposedly full POSIX compliance (according to some old IBM brochures... though whether it is still in there is the question (not that it is needed anymore with X and HoB).
As for what you can get from eCS that you cant from Linux or FreeBSD... with VirtualPC, full Win32 (or virtually any other PC OS) support, as well as a better threading model (ie: also handles more network traffic with the right apps), better hardware support than one, and as good as for the other, and support for 64 CPUs.
So I guess what you can get from it, all depends on what you want from it. For me, my OS choice depends on what it is for. My game machine is Win98. My graphics machines are Mac's. My servers are Warp or eCS.
For what it comes with - even without the bundled software, commercially there is no equivalent.
Rob
>your database, and a unix ftpd, you'd be able to do
>it from one box, out of the box. That alone is worth
>quite a bit of money to me.
OS/2 has done all of this for years, without VPC or Hob... most *nix apps can be recompiled for OS/2 (and many such as Apache, and various other ___d's as well like BIND and some ftpd's already have been). Also, there were OS/2 Oracle releases, though I always preferred DB/2 or MySQL for Warp.
Looks like it's been time for you to consider OS/2 (or better, eCS) for quite some time! ;-)
Rob
It's more than a "you have to pay for it" issue... WarpSMP and WarpUNI use different kernels (for one). While a WarpSMP machine can run with 1 (to 64) CPU(s), the kernel was designed for 2 or more. This was a high end server option that came only in Warp Server 4 (Advanced?) and Warp Server for e-Business - to the tune of $1200+ per license.
SS seems to have accomplished quite a feat in getting IBM to allow them to include the SMP base in their eCS Pro release for so little. Especially when you compare it to an 8 way Win2000 or WinXP solution (which is the highest Win2K and XP go until you go to clusters, where the highest is currently 32 CPU 4 node 8 way - compared to eCS that will do 64 way - and with DSS or Vinca can do 4 or 2 node 64 way). So, the price for the SMP kernel and related code is very very low - when compared to the closest XP solution or even the WSeB solution the SMP base is from.
Is it worth it? Damn yeah! My 3 SMP machines FLY. Warp manages 90-95% utilization. Add a truly multithreaded app (like DominoGo WebServer and hopefully the new multithreaded Apache for OS/2) and watch your poor machine beg for something to do. Certain tasks seem faster on 2 CPU's than on one of twice the MHz... probably due to thread scheduling or small time execution threads slipping in on the second CPU that would otherwise be lagging waiting on the first...
- Rob
I have been watching their posts in the groups and forums for 2 years now, and I've noticed that the puzzle they are building is quite big. More and more, new pieces are appearing, making the whole of it appear much better.
Serenity seems to be building a very strong base for their business plans, and offering, piece by piece, a lot of incentive for businesses to consider eCS. I noticed that with their plans for good document support (for things such as Office documents) - as well as their inclusion of choice in the matter... followed by their plans for the demo CD, and then most recently HobLink and VirtualPC in eCS.
Yet, the releases each come tailored to what the user needs. You dont have to buy the house to get the kitchen sink.
There's a lot more, on the business level, that I have seen them mention (and probably tons more than that which hasnt been mention in the public forums) that is all along that same path of creating and/or entering markets that eCS can be viable in (as oppsed to going after the home desktop for instance) To me it's amazing... it's (their plans) seem a lot like OS/2 itself... ultimately scalable to the sky (like Warp's seldom used 64 way CPU support, or 4 node 64 way (yes 256CPUs!!!!) support), but starting at a reasonable level that is realistic (just like Warp's ability to run on a 486 - even today).
So, while Stardock may have had some great plans, I think SS's are more realistic, and am anxious to see how things progress.
Rob
Thanks Innotek guys!
-Rob
Documentation for it (and thusly the OS/2 API) can be found on the CD... *DO NOT PRINT IT UNLESS* you have a fast printer and LOTS of paper. Once all the documentation is printed, you will have roughly 500 pounds of docs. No, I am not joking.
A printer such as (or comparable to) the IBM InfoPrint (with duplexer) is ideal for such things - just remember to empty the output tray as needed or be prepared to pick up lotsa paper from the floor ;-)
Rob
So, figured, just in case you have a little more RAM for the old machine and Warp 4, you might want to dropping it in there and using Warp 4.
- Rob
In addition, the part mentioned by someone about holding MS liable - why not? MS knew about the holes that allowed Code Red. There are notices and documents and emails online dated 1-2 years before hand warning them of the problems. They still refused to fix much of the issues until after the fact. Some of these issues still persist in IIS and even XP. It's about time someone tried to hold them liable. If a car company sold you a car they knew would blow up if you... *used it*... (ie: did with the product what you were supposed to do), they'd be sued for mucho dinero... why has MS been held to a different legal scale for what can be business threatening bugs, exploits and holes they have been made fully aware of over the years?
Robert
That means if eComstation and/or OS/2 gain *any* market share, it becomes a very viable place to expend such non-effort... inotherwords, if it will cost you nothing, (or close to it with some OS/2 specific modification) to release an OS/2 "native" app, then why not? It's more money for near zero outlay.
This helps break the cycle that was pointed out by you - which indeed did happen. The reason I see it as something developers would consider, is that if there are a halfway decent number of eComStation sales (and the numbers are steadily growing), eCS users will almost always invariably buy an eCS version of an app before a Win version that runs under VPC or Odin - especially since it will be feature compatible - and may even have a few OS/2 only features.
The few things that wont (wihtout effort) get translated over in such a "recompile" are the ridiculous object-orientedness nature of a true OS/2 app... for instance, most people dont realize, that on a true OS/2 app (written with say IBM VAC++ for OS/2 or even written in REXX using GPFRexx), even "dialog text" is really just another object... that if you see it on the screen it's an object... if you dont see it and the program executes it, it's probably an object.
The beauty of course, is (for instance on an OS/2 system's scheme - or look and feel), making a change to an object type instantaneously changes all objects based off that object type - no "Apply" button or reboot. Thus, it's mostly things OS/2 users dont care about... yeah, it's neat being able to have every text line on a dialog box a different font, or being able to change them all at once by changing their default container's properties... but it isnt needed in 95% of the programs out there... so a recompiled Win app will be as fast as (and in some cases faster) and as stable as any other OS/2 app.
So, I think I've explained the incentive to developers... ("if I pick up even 500 new sales for doing nothing, it's worth it" - and with eCS's sales, that's an easy figure for most mainstream Win apps), as well as how in doing so, it promotes more and more OS/2 app development. If Company X makes a profit off of selling eCS/Warp apps, then why not spend a little more to make a bigger profit by adding some features OS/2 users expect out of an eCS or OS/2 app (like better drag-n-drop support, and more object orientedness / SOM support, or voice support).
Eventually, I would expect that Win users, seeing their apps run natively under eCS (an OS that will still run regular Win apps without issue)but as fast or faster, and without the tons of issues a Win user goes through (virus of the week for instance, crash of the day as another example), it's *possible*that they may thus consider eCS.
And the cycle starts - or maybe it doesnt.
After all, it's all a matter of hype... and though WinXP is DOG SLOW - especially compared to eCS or Linux - much less to Win9X, people believe the hype, and companies like CompUSA are paid to shovel it down people's throats as "the best there is!". Of course, MS can prove that XP is faster than Win9X on new hardware - but that's only because Win9X wasnt designed for new hardware. It still has timing issues and RAM handling issues based off the (now compiled into the "kernal" of Win9X) legacy DOS memory and bus handling code... same issue that prevented Win95 from running on 100MHz FSB machines (for which a kludge was built into 98 to address).
So, is it hype that will win? I dont know. I'll stick with Warp and eCS (until IBM breaks in and takes my CD's back and reformats my machine)... and Linux here and there when I get the time... and MacOS on our few MACs... It's great having a server that runs our whole network, DNS, email, FTP, MySQL, backup web, time and more being only a P133 with 48MB of RAM. I dont like wasting hardware... new or old... so eCS, Warp and Linux for me - it's not "OS evangelism"... it's expecting to be able to use what I buy... if I get a car with a 500hp engine, i dont want to be stuck doing 40mph because the transmission manufacturer they subbed out the work to doesnt know how to make a tranny.
Just my thoughts... only time will tell...
- Robert
This is entirely the same with the game box market. What's in the XBoX? Ask Sega. Anyone who hasnt realized who makes the XBoX by now doesnt deserve to be called a console gamesenthusiast. Or perhaps it is just coincidental that the design (including the entirely asthetic things like the triangles and button lettering) are so similar to the DreamCast (as well as so much along the same specs as the planned DreamCast successor that Sega dropped - also coincidentally shortly after MS announced XBoX)...
So, the question is all a matter of marketing - as always. There was an article in (I think) "XBox Magazine" a while back (the mag that claims it isnt in any way biased towards the XBox... btw) stating that there will only be a few hundred thousand units produced per month - which is supposed to be about a tenth of Sony's plans for PS2... this is the only thing I can think of that would change whether or not marketing has the (normal) affect on such things.
This is something I am truly curious about - is Sega going to make so few XBox's for MS? Or is the article wrong? If the article was correct, then it's probably a PS2, GameCube, XBox (in that order) world, based off name recognition and marketing... otherwise, MS, through Sega's efforts, I forsee being number 1 in the game console world.
If anyone has any information pointing to someone else making the XBox, I'd be very interested in that as well... though I dont think anything legitimate exists stating otherwise.. and *somebody* had to make it since MS doesnt make hardware, doesnt design hardware, and doesnt write software (at least not since Edlin). Robert