Considering that 56k modems *require* phone lines to be digital on the other end, your statements don't make any sense... unless you're talking about consumer VoIP.
Beyond that, even if you managed to mitigate the current military lasers enough to survive them with some reasonable reflectivity, the lasers will only continue to get more powerful and more compact over time. Reflective armour would buy you a few years, nothing more.
We must have, because that was the point of their petition: to open up the launchpad for multiple users.
Ah, the real reason for BO's petition. They have no conceivable use for the pad themselves, so let's look at who they think the other users might be... How about ULA, their partner in the bid? ULA who has a near-monopoly on US launch capacity, and resents the competition that SpaceX has been causing?
I have some clues. I know that the velocity required to get to the moon from LEO is only slightly higher than that required to get to GEO from LEO, meaning that the recent satellite launch took them to most of the velocity required to get to the moon.
It's worth pointing out that that's a Falcon 9 launch too, not a Falcon Heavy launch. So they expect to be able to deliver small payloads to the moon even with their much lower capacity rocket.
No, we *are* talking about console users here. The target demo for the Steam Box is a gamer who wants to play PC games in their living room, and so will be able to just buy the box and plug it in. The current release doesn't try to achieve that because it's not there yet, hence why they're suggesting that it won't be of much interest to anyone but Linux enthusiasts at this point.
You mean, like how Blue Origin tried to hobble SpaceX by securing a launchpad they had no use for?
SpaceX has 39 launches on their manifest, and has completed 9 successful orbital launches. They will probably get a whole bunch more once they complete the Falcon Heavy demo flight.
Blue Origin has zero launches on their manifest, zero successful orbital launches, and no firm timeline for when they might complete their first orbital rocket except that it appears to be in early development.
In short, Blue Origin had no conceivable use for the pad, except for a possible use in the long-term. I think what was actually going on there is that the United Launch Alliance, which had a near-monopoly on US launches until recently, was using Blue Origin as a proxy (co-sponsoring the bid) to try to hurt SpaceX, who is offering strong competition and forcing them to lower their prices.
SpaceX launched a spacecraft to an altitude (or distance) of 80,000 kilometres. The moon is 384,400 kilometres away. That's less than 5x the distance.
It's also unreasonable to expect SpaceX to be able to reach the moon right out of the gate. Their first Falcon 9 rocket was only launched in 2010, and was developed for a fraction of the cost of the Apollo program (the engine R&D on Apollo was over five billion in modern dollars). They'll get there; the Falcon Heavy should be able to do a manned lunar mission in two launches, as it has a lift capacity somewhere between one third and one half of the Saturn V.
I don't know what to say... under Canadian regulations, they'd be regulated exactly the same as a cable company that offered television and Internet. Maybe it's because Google doesn't offer pure telephone service too? Google Voice isn't quite a standalone phone service.
I agree, which is why I'm using raidz2. But that's not the problem I was suggesting a solution to. I was suggesting a solution to the problem of "data on single hard drive eventually goes corrupt, and I don't want to buy a second hard drive."
IPTV isn't an over-the-top service, while Netflix is... I can't speak for the US, but in Canada, it's regulated identically to any other broadcast medium like cable television. Then again, our regulation for that is also federal (there are broadcast regions, but they're defined by the federal regulator).
It's substantially more expensive to dig trenches to bury cable than to use existing utility poles. That would be true anywhere in the world that has utility poles.
The power company (owned by the city) owns 80% of the poles. AT&T owns the remaining 20%, presumably because they needed poles in some locations where there was no power pole.
You don't need raidz or multiple drives to get protection against corrupt blocks with ZFS. It supports ditto blocks, which basically just means mirrored copies of blocks. It tries to keep ditto blocks as far apart from eachother on the disk as possible.
By default, ZFS only uses ditto blocks for important filesystem metadata (the more important the data, the more copies). But you can tell it that you want to use ditto blocks on user data too. All you do is set the "copies" property:
Their basic findings was that the first 18 months has a 5.1% annual failure rate (infant mortality), the following 18 months has a 1.4% annual failure rate (random failures), and 36+ months shows a 11.8% annual failure rate (old age). They had 4 years of data to use.
If you look at their charts, they're not completely flat/straight lines, but it's surprising how straight they are, and how sudden the inflection points are.
Using absolute survival figures, roughly (because I'm reading off a graph) 95% survive one year, 92% survive two years, 90% survive 3 years, 78% survive four years, and their extrapolation is that you hit 50% at about 6 years.
The assumption that cost/GB goes down over time is not always the case. If you had made that assumption in 2011, for example, and planned to replace your drives two years later, you'd have been wrong. Granted, that was an exceptional case, but that exception lasted for years.
If you have to replace the drive with an identical model, the warranty may not be useful. My personal experience with warranty replacements for hard dives is that you don't always get an identical model, you get a comparable model. If you really need an identical model, either you'll need a guarantee from the manufacturer (the text of the warranty has to say identical model), or you'll need to buy a new drive outright (stock is usually floating around long after manufacture on a model stops). If you're in that boat, the warranty is useless anyhow.
The warranty on the consumer one was listed as 2 years on NewEgg, where I got the prices from, not 5 years. In terms of seek times, they're both 7200RPM drives, so their seek times would be nearly identical as the 7200RPM rotation is the primary limiting factor there. And the amount of on-disk error correction is determined by if it's an AF drive or a 512b drive, not by if it's an Enterprise drive or not. Ironically, the specs show that the consumer drive I listed is an AF drive, while the enterprise drive is not, which means the consumer drive features better error correction than the enterprise drive in this comparison.
The enterprise drives don't either. If your support contract with somebody (who wouldn't be the drive manufacturer) covers that, that's not really related to the type of drive, but rather if you have a support contract or not.
Let's presume that consumer drives don't fail for 3 years, and enterprise drives don't fail for whatever their warranty period is (or at least neither suffers significant failure figures during those time periods). Let me then compare the price of a comparable consumer and enterprise drive on NewEgg:
Now, we know the data shows consumer drives are highly reliable for 3 years, after which they get reliable, so let's presume you replace at your own cost every 3 years. Enterprise drives are probably no more reliable, but replacements are free between years 3 and 5, so let's say you replace at your own cost every 5 years. You get:
Consumer drive, average cost per year: ~$73 Enterprise drive, average cost per year: ~$68
Not a huge difference there, and if both drives are really equally reliable, it doesn't really make much of a difference which you pick.
IMO a good bulk storage array uses spinning rust, with optional SSD caching depending on performance requirements (RAM caching might be good enough depending on use case).
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that 56k modems *require* phone lines to be digital on the other end, your statements don't make any sense... unless you're talking about consumer VoIP.
Beyond that, even if you managed to mitigate the current military lasers enough to survive them with some reasonable reflectivity, the lasers will only continue to get more powerful and more compact over time. Reflective armour would buy you a few years, nothing more.
We must have, because that was the point of their petition: to open up the launchpad for multiple users.
Ah, the real reason for BO's petition. They have no conceivable use for the pad themselves, so let's look at who they think the other users might be... How about ULA, their partner in the bid? ULA who has a near-monopoly on US launch capacity, and resents the competition that SpaceX has been causing?
I have some clues. I know that the velocity required to get to the moon from LEO is only slightly higher than that required to get to GEO from LEO, meaning that the recent satellite launch took them to most of the velocity required to get to the moon.
It's worth pointing out that that's a Falcon 9 launch too, not a Falcon Heavy launch. So they expect to be able to deliver small payloads to the moon even with their much lower capacity rocket.
It would explain why SpaceX's reported payload capacity to the moon for the Falcon Heavy is barely less than their GEO capacity.
No, we *are* talking about console users here. The target demo for the Steam Box is a gamer who wants to play PC games in their living room, and so will be able to just buy the box and plug it in. The current release doesn't try to achieve that because it's not there yet, hence why they're suggesting that it won't be of much interest to anyone but Linux enthusiasts at this point.
You mean, like how Blue Origin tried to hobble SpaceX by securing a launchpad they had no use for?
SpaceX has 39 launches on their manifest, and has completed 9 successful orbital launches. They will probably get a whole bunch more once they complete the Falcon Heavy demo flight.
Blue Origin has zero launches on their manifest, zero successful orbital launches, and no firm timeline for when they might complete their first orbital rocket except that it appears to be in early development.
In short, Blue Origin had no conceivable use for the pad, except for a possible use in the long-term. I think what was actually going on there is that the United Launch Alliance, which had a near-monopoly on US launches until recently, was using Blue Origin as a proxy (co-sponsoring the bid) to try to hurt SpaceX, who is offering strong competition and forcing them to lower their prices.
SpaceX launched a spacecraft to an altitude (or distance) of 80,000 kilometres. The moon is 384,400 kilometres away. That's less than 5x the distance.
It's also unreasonable to expect SpaceX to be able to reach the moon right out of the gate. Their first Falcon 9 rocket was only launched in 2010, and was developed for a fraction of the cost of the Apollo program (the engine R&D on Apollo was over five billion in modern dollars). They'll get there; the Falcon Heavy should be able to do a manned lunar mission in two launches, as it has a lift capacity somewhere between one third and one half of the Saturn V.
I don't know what to say... under Canadian regulations, they'd be regulated exactly the same as a cable company that offered television and Internet. Maybe it's because Google doesn't offer pure telephone service too? Google Voice isn't quite a standalone phone service.
The problem with ePost is that my credit card can also be used to simplify and automate bill payments.
It's already cheaper to send most packages either UPS or Purolator ground ship.
Hidden irony: Canada Post owns Purolator.
I agree, which is why I'm using raidz2. But that's not the problem I was suggesting a solution to. I was suggesting a solution to the problem of "data on single hard drive eventually goes corrupt, and I don't want to buy a second hard drive."
IPTV isn't an over-the-top service, while Netflix is... I can't speak for the US, but in Canada, it's regulated identically to any other broadcast medium like cable television. Then again, our regulation for that is also federal (there are broadcast regions, but they're defined by the federal regulator).
The referenced source file has no actual implementation of the encryption in it, so claiming 100 lines is a bit silly...
Google Fibre is not an Internet-only service. It also includes television service, making it analogous to cable providers.
It's substantially more expensive to dig trenches to bury cable than to use existing utility poles. That would be true anywhere in the world that has utility poles.
The power company (owned by the city) owns 80% of the poles. AT&T owns the remaining 20%, presumably because they needed poles in some locations where there was no power pole.
You don't need raidz or multiple drives to get protection against corrupt blocks with ZFS. It supports ditto blocks, which basically just means mirrored copies of blocks. It tries to keep ditto blocks as far apart from eachother on the disk as possible.
By default, ZFS only uses ditto blocks for important filesystem metadata (the more important the data, the more copies). But you can tell it that you want to use ditto blocks on user data too. All you do is set the "copies" property:
# zfs set copies=2 tank
The same guys who did this blog post (BackBlaze) did another on failure rates based on age:
http://blog.backblaze.com/2013/11/12/how-long-do-disk-drives-last/
Their basic findings was that the first 18 months has a 5.1% annual failure rate (infant mortality), the following 18 months has a 1.4% annual failure rate (random failures), and 36+ months shows a 11.8% annual failure rate (old age). They had 4 years of data to use.
If you look at their charts, they're not completely flat/straight lines, but it's surprising how straight they are, and how sudden the inflection points are.
Using absolute survival figures, roughly (because I'm reading off a graph) 95% survive one year, 92% survive two years, 90% survive 3 years, 78% survive four years, and their extrapolation is that you hit 50% at about 6 years.
The assumption that cost/GB goes down over time is not always the case. If you had made that assumption in 2011, for example, and planned to replace your drives two years later, you'd have been wrong. Granted, that was an exceptional case, but that exception lasted for years.
If you have to replace the drive with an identical model, the warranty may not be useful. My personal experience with warranty replacements for hard dives is that you don't always get an identical model, you get a comparable model. If you really need an identical model, either you'll need a guarantee from the manufacturer (the text of the warranty has to say identical model), or you'll need to buy a new drive outright (stock is usually floating around long after manufacture on a model stops). If you're in that boat, the warranty is useless anyhow.
The warranty on the consumer one was listed as 2 years on NewEgg, where I got the prices from, not 5 years. In terms of seek times, they're both 7200RPM drives, so their seek times would be nearly identical as the 7200RPM rotation is the primary limiting factor there. And the amount of on-disk error correction is determined by if it's an AF drive or a 512b drive, not by if it's an Enterprise drive or not. Ironically, the specs show that the consumer drive I listed is an AF drive, while the enterprise drive is not, which means the consumer drive features better error correction than the enterprise drive in this comparison.
The enterprise drives don't either. If your support contract with somebody (who wouldn't be the drive manufacturer) covers that, that's not really related to the type of drive, but rather if you have a support contract or not.
Let's presume that consumer drives don't fail for 3 years, and enterprise drives don't fail for whatever their warranty period is (or at least neither suffers significant failure figures during those time periods). Let me then compare the price of a comparable consumer and enterprise drive on NewEgg:
Consumer drive: WD3001FAEX (3TB, 7200RPM, 64MB cache, 6gbit/s): $220, 2y warranty
Enterprise drive: WD3000FYYZ (3TB, 7200RPM, 64MB cache, 6gbit/s): $340, 5y warranty
Now, we know the data shows consumer drives are highly reliable for 3 years, after which they get reliable, so let's presume you replace at your own cost every 3 years. Enterprise drives are probably no more reliable, but replacements are free between years 3 and 5, so let's say you replace at your own cost every 5 years. You get:
Consumer drive, average cost per year: ~$73
Enterprise drive, average cost per year: ~$68
Not a huge difference there, and if both drives are really equally reliable, it doesn't really make much of a difference which you pick.
IMO a good bulk storage array uses spinning rust, with optional SSD caching depending on performance requirements (RAM caching might be good enough depending on use case).