Tuning the scheduler is critical to performance on this kind of workload. The other critical aspect is having a highly optimized kernel without concurrency bottlenecks. 2.6.20 fell over on kernel concurrency, and 2.6.23 fell over with the scheduler.
The interesting part for me is really performance across the board for lots of other different workloads, on a variety of different systems.
If the numbers are really 15% different, that seems essentially equivalent to me. I never understood why 15% better really matters when processor speeds, and processor cores are increasing on a yearly basis.
Right. Unless it's your brother that was robbed, your mother's house that burned, your life savings tied up in the boat that sank, your cow that was run down, or your new neighbor's rabid dog that needs killing.
Who learns of their house being robbed, their mothers house being burned, etc from the news media?
Thoreau's point is the people who don't already know these things don't need to know them. That's why he refers to it as "Gossip".
I want to believe that the internet will require everyone to be more responsible or lose. But the real question for me is at what point does total marketplace dominance trump that.
An auction site is just a natural monopoly. It's in the interests of the sellers to have all the buyers on one site (increased buyers/item), and it's in the interests of buyers to have all the sellers on one site (increased items/buyer).
Ebay is a public company, so even if there's some virtuous people running the company, there's still the interest of the shareholders.
The only thing really standing in the way of Ebay doing "whatever it takes to make more money" is the sherman anti-trust law. Monopolies ARE legal in the US. What's illegal is using monopoly power to stop competition (and likely a few other things).
This is a question I've wondered about since a friend of mine was talking about the best chemical-battery replacement.
What is the theoretical limit of a capacitor? That is, if you could somehow place all the atoms exactly where you wanted, what's the energy/weight ratio you could obtain?
This has _zero_ to do with the architecture and everything to do with the user. Linux would be (and is) treated in the same way in similar situations.
This is simply not true. Anyone that's ever installed software, or run "windows update" knows that rebooting is a very likely part of this process. The dependencies and non-modular approach of Windows are quite apparent. Software vendors say "just reboot" because of all the complexities and dependencies within windows.
The same simply isn't true for Linux. Replace a critical shared library? No problem, running programs still have a hook to the old version. Any new process that starts will get the new version of the library. Why reload the whole damn OS when restarting a process will do the same thing? You can be assured the people running those BBSes were far less like to have the "just reboot" mentality.
You're trying to tell me with a straight face that the BBS market influenced Microsoft? (Which flies in the face of what we've all experienced with Windows). Further, the other reason most people have that attitude is because to them a computer is just another appliance.
No, the reason people have this attitude is because it freaking works. Incidentally, there are numerous classes of problems on Linux (and UNIX in general) which are more quickly and easily "fixed" with a reboot.
I've been administrating Linux machines for 13+ years. I can count on one hand the number of times a reboot solved any problem. The only class of problem this solved is a kernel bug, or the kernel crashing (usually from a hardware problem). I can't even remember the last time I had to reboot any of my Windows machines without a good reason (eg: patching).
Why would anyone reboot without a "good reason"? The point is that Linux simply has less "good reasons", and requires less reboots. Linux requires FAR less reboots for "patching". Finally, there's nothing wrong with rebooting _anyway_. If your service uptime requirements are affected by a single machine rebooting, your architecture is broken.
Wow. Now I know you've really drank the Microsoft kool-aid. Not everyone can afford multiple machine redundancy just to fix the endemic problems of Microsoft who advocate "Just reboot!" to fix so many problems. There's really no reason why I need to reboot just to update what's essentially some new versions of DLLs. The Microsoft architecture is essentially broken if you have to buy another damn machine for the SOLE purpose of maintaining high availability.
If you can't see the point, well I pity you, and demand that you turn over your geek card and nerd badge, you poseur.
I have neither, if that just means I sit around and think how cool my technology is. I'm really a pragmatist, not a technology for technology kind of guy. If it doesn't serve some greater purpose, or does what it does at a better price, why bother? Why couldn't one do "both"?
Because, as someone else pointed out, we all have limited amounts of money. Spending a lot of money on a fancy fan to save a few watts is a waste. If you were smart, you'd put that money towards something that gave you more bang/buck, like geo-thermal heat, better insulation for your house, a high-efficiency furnace, etc. Energy efficiency doesn't end at the computer.
Frequent reboots haven't been required since win2k.
(snicker)
I've been running windows for years, and this statement is just very funny to me. You must be running some entirely different magical version of windows that I've ever seen, but reboots are EXTREMELY common on 2000, XP, and Vista. The "just reboot" instinct I've seen from multiple different Windows guys is common, and DOES work. I was looking forward to Vista, which claimed it didn't require rebooting as often. That didn't really turn out to be the case. If you really think win2k and beyond doesn't require reboots, I think you either don't run it, or just have a very poor memory.
One time I had an opportunity to visit Microsoft and have lunch with a friend there. I figured while there I'd take the opportunity. I asked them in hushed tones, "Just how do you configure Windows so that you don't have to reboot it all of the time?" They looked at me like I was crazy.
In a certain sense.. you were crazy, at least at Microsoft.
The origins of an OS really show through a lot of the time. Windows started out as a single user OS, so rebooting was OK because the only person you messed up was the guy sitting in front of the screen. It eventually evolved into a multi-user OS, but the "just reboot!" mentality persists to this day.
Linux/Unix on the other hand started out life as a multi-user OS. Rebooting was a big no-no, because you'd affect countless people logged in, and you'd get yelled at for ruining someones work.
It's funny the attitude that comes from the users of each OS. Windows administrators categorically will try rebooting the damn thing first to fix any problem (and it usually works). Linux administrators will only try this as a last resort (and it almost never works).
Anyway, at Microsoft the idea that you can somehow tweak windows just right so rebooting isn't necessary is crazy. They designed the damn thing so "just reboot!" will fix any problem. This of course is an unacceptable solution to a lot of people out their, but for a lot of people it's obviously reality.
A fan can't draw much more than a few watts. What's the point? It seems like a complicated array of technology just to save a few watts of power. You'd be better off buying a more efficient power supply if you wanted to be "green".
Although there's lots of it around, current estimates show that it will only last for about 200 more years
What the hell are you talking about? Aluminum is likely the most recycled metal on the planet. Why would we "run out" of something we re-use, and is the most abundant metal in the earths crust? It might get more expensive.. but we won't "run out".
How are we in these United States different when compared to the so called "third world" countries - specifically relating to issues like these?
My guess is in many of the "third world" countries you'll be expected to bribe officials to correct an error like this. Of course, you could also probably bribe someone to list your enemy as dead as well.
Is that better? I guess it is if you're someone with a lot of money to throw around at bribes it is.
I kind of doubt there's retirement benefits in most third world countries.. because most people don't live until retirement age. I doubt most people can afford to get a loan. I'm unfamiliar with healthcare in third world countries.. but I kind of doubt most people can afford it, even if/when it's available. So yah, I guess being declared dead in a third world country has less impact because there's just nothing really to lose.
But this is really their fault because they blew it in the seventies with total shitpiles everywhere.
Yes and no.
US automakers were doing OK in the 90s, mostly propped up by every idiot having to buy a bigger and bigger SUV than the next guy. Then gas prices went up (surprise!)
I agree US automakers are dumbasses, and it only took a couple brain cells to figure out gas prices would go up at SOME point. I just think they're dumbasses for different reasons.
Actually, the reason is that you put someone through 12 years of school, and he doesn't want to work in a chicken processing plant anymore.
Nonsense. People don't want to do those jobs at the wages offered, and the work conditions present. it doesn't make any economic sense to force a decently educated worker into a job that could be filled for much less cost by someone who has no education at all.
More pure nonsense. Are you trying to tell me the education system is that much different than it was 30 years ago? I'll be willing to bet those plants were filled with US citizens then. What's changed now other than a large influx of cheap labor from Mexico?
There's plenty of jobs that people with high school education do already that don't require much in the way of education. Auto plant workers make good wages. Do they need a higher level of education than other plant workers, or is it just the fact that they were unionized many years ago and the conditions and wages improved?
No, I'm not saying unions solve all problems. But treating the workplace as static, and unchanging with the available labor pool is just plain incorrect.
It's not fair to target one small group just because they have money.
Fair? Fair to who?
Civil law isn't about what's "fair", civil law is about liability. It's not a big stretch to think that the guys who pull the stuff out of the ground are certainly liable for creating global warming. If they want to also sue "everyone in the world", I guess they can... but that's simply not practical, and I doubt even possible in a court of law.
just what technical problems could shut down five reactors?
If the article submitter had actually read the article, he might have noted the nuclear plants shut down because of an under voltage in the rest of the system (caused by a breakdown elsewhere). My guess is this is some kind of safety measure, otherwise why would you have the system shut down?
Here are two terms with serious double-entendres: red wings and snowballs.
Your inability to actually DO the search on either of those terms doesn't really surprise me, however. Neither of those searches turned up anything even near pornographic on at least the first 4 pages.
Why you actually have to remain "anonymous" for knowing some dumb sex or porn term is beyond me.
The stuff that is supposed to filtered is still there, and often shows up on otherwise innocuous searches.
I hear people talk about this "I was just searching for something innocuous" all the time, but have yet to experience it, after 10+ years of doing search engine searches.
I don't know anyone who's ever been surfing a website, saw an ad for a gadget, or a shirt, or anything, and said "Wow, I just found out I need to buy that!"
Advertising doesn't really work like that. Much of advertising is just an attempt to create familiarity. So when you DO suddenly decide you "need to buy that!" you'll at least have a passing familiarity with the product that was advertised to you.
Because I don't accept the premise that health insurance is like hurricane insurance. I will tell you this though, if people in Nebraska have to pay more to help another part of the country survive, I'm all for it. Any society relies on everyone else to keep it strong. Second, someone without legs isn't broken down. I think they have a great ability to contribute.
Says you. Others might feel otherwise. Who's going to make these big decisions about who's "fundamentally broken", and who's not? I guess I think it's more than a little sick if it's the guy trying to make an extra buck.
"Sorry sir, our strategy director has determined it's just not economically feasible to continue your treatment. You see, our stock price just took a tumble, and we're trying to prop it up a bit by decreasing costs. I hope you understand. It just wouldn't be fair to the stockholders, or the other people we keep insured."
I know it may sound heartless and uncivilized, but at what point is a person who is fundamentally broken down kicked off the public teat?
It not only sounds heartless and uncivilized, it actually is. Do you really want a society where there's legless people scrawling around on skateboards begging for food because they're "fundamentally broken down"? It wasn't that long ago we did, and I consider it progress that the developed world mostly doesn't have that anymore. Evolution has really nothing to do with it. To use a real life example, does it make sense that the people in Nebraska should have to carry the insurance burden for the people who choose to live in hurricane alley?
I don't really know. But at least you can choose to not live in "hurricane alley". I'm not sure what the big alternative is here for people who are "fundamentally broken". Death?
Insurance is all about modeling the risks for an individual based on available medical data.
No, Insurance PROFITS are all about modeling the risks. Insurance is actually about distributing unknown risk among a large number of people. If I had a time machine and could look into the future and see if I'd ever need insurance, the whole thing would become completely pointless, as I'd know exactly what was going to happen. If the insurance company had access to my "time machine test results", they'd either cancel my health insurance if I was going to get sick, or I'd just sock all that money away in a bank account if I wasn't. In *theory*, if genetic screening can increase the accuracy, then people with clean genetic situations should get decreased rates from what they pay now, while those with the dispositions carry the burden of the risk.
I think what people are really concerned about here is that certain individuals will just not be able to get health insurance. We don't really worry about that for car insurance, or flood insurance, or whatever, since you can always choose to not drive, or live somewhere else. Without health insurance, the only real alternative if you get gravely ill is death, or bankruptcy and losing your job (then maybe medicaid will take over). I think most people would say those aren't very good alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
this would be great target for terrorists, especially if it's your society's major delivery network.
Right. Because the existing mail system has never been successfully used for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_bomb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
I'm more than a little tired of the "but the terrorists!" reply.
Tuning the scheduler is critical to performance on this kind of workload. The other critical aspect is having a highly optimized kernel without concurrency bottlenecks. 2.6.20 fell over on kernel concurrency, and 2.6.23 fell over with the scheduler.
The interesting part for me is really performance across the board for lots of other different workloads, on a variety of different systems.
If the numbers are really 15% different, that seems essentially equivalent to me. I never understood why 15% better really matters when processor speeds, and processor cores are increasing on a yearly basis.
Right. Unless it's your brother that was robbed, your mother's house that burned, your life savings tied up in the boat that sank, your cow that was run down, or your new neighbor's rabid dog that needs killing.
Who learns of their house being robbed, their mothers house being burned, etc from the news media?
Thoreau's point is the people who don't already know these things don't need to know them. That's why he refers to it as "Gossip".
I want to believe that the internet will require everyone to be more responsible or lose. But the real question for me is at what point does total marketplace dominance trump that.
An auction site is just a natural monopoly. It's in the interests of the sellers to have all the buyers on one site (increased buyers/item), and it's in the interests of buyers to have all the sellers on one site (increased items/buyer).
Ebay is a public company, so even if there's some virtuous people running the company, there's still the interest of the shareholders.
The only thing really standing in the way of Ebay doing "whatever it takes to make more money" is the sherman anti-trust law. Monopolies ARE legal in the US. What's illegal is using monopoly power to stop competition (and likely a few other things).
This is a question I've wondered about since a friend of mine was talking about the best chemical-battery replacement.
What is the theoretical limit of a capacitor? That is, if you could somehow place all the atoms exactly where you wanted, what's the energy/weight ratio you could obtain?
This has _zero_ to do with the architecture and everything to do with the user. Linux would be (and is) treated in the same way in similar situations.
This is simply not true. Anyone that's ever installed software, or run "windows update" knows that rebooting is a very likely part of this process. The dependencies and non-modular approach of Windows are quite apparent. Software vendors say "just reboot" because of all the complexities and dependencies within windows.
The same simply isn't true for Linux. Replace a critical shared library? No problem, running programs still have a hook to the old version. Any new process that starts will get the new version of the library. Why reload the whole damn OS when restarting a process will do the same thing?
You can be assured the people running those BBSes were far less like to have the "just reboot" mentality.
You're trying to tell me with a straight face that the BBS market influenced Microsoft? (Which flies in the face of what we've all experienced with Windows).
Further, the other reason most people have that attitude is because to them a computer is just another appliance.
No, the reason people have this attitude is because it freaking works.
Incidentally, there are numerous classes of problems on Linux (and UNIX in general) which are more quickly and easily "fixed" with a reboot.
I've been administrating Linux machines for 13+ years. I can count on one hand the number of times a reboot solved any problem. The only class of problem this solved is a kernel bug, or the kernel crashing (usually from a hardware problem).
I can't even remember the last time I had to reboot any of my Windows machines without a good reason (eg: patching).
Why would anyone reboot without a "good reason"? The point is that Linux simply has less "good reasons", and requires less reboots. Linux requires FAR less reboots for "patching".
Finally, there's nothing wrong with rebooting _anyway_. If your service uptime requirements are affected by a single machine rebooting, your architecture is broken.
Wow. Now I know you've really drank the Microsoft kool-aid. Not everyone can afford multiple machine redundancy just to fix the endemic problems of Microsoft who advocate "Just reboot!" to fix so many problems. There's really no reason why I need to reboot just to update what's essentially some new versions of DLLs. The Microsoft architecture is essentially broken if you have to buy another damn machine for the SOLE purpose of maintaining high availability.
If you can't see the point, well I pity you, and demand that you turn over your geek card and nerd badge, you poseur.
I have neither, if that just means I sit around and think how cool my technology is. I'm really a pragmatist, not a technology for technology kind of guy. If it doesn't serve some greater purpose, or does what it does at a better price, why bother?
Why couldn't one do "both"?
Because, as someone else pointed out, we all have limited amounts of money. Spending a lot of money on a fancy fan to save a few watts is a waste. If you were smart, you'd put that money towards something that gave you more bang/buck, like geo-thermal heat, better insulation for your house, a high-efficiency furnace, etc. Energy efficiency doesn't end at the computer.
Frequent reboots haven't been required since win2k.
(snicker)
I've been running windows for years, and this statement is just very funny to me. You must be running some entirely different magical version of windows that I've ever seen, but reboots are EXTREMELY common on 2000, XP, and Vista. The "just reboot" instinct I've seen from multiple different Windows guys is common, and DOES work. I was looking forward to Vista, which claimed it didn't require rebooting as often. That didn't really turn out to be the case. If you really think win2k and beyond doesn't require reboots, I think you either don't run it, or just have a very poor memory.
I'm not saying Windows is better, but the above means you don't have to work a lot with NFS clients on Linux...
Very true.
I consider NFS to be the devil. If given the choice, I'll choose a different protocol every time.
One time I had an opportunity to visit Microsoft and have lunch with a friend there. I figured while there I'd take the opportunity. I asked them in hushed tones, "Just how do you configure Windows so that you don't have to reboot it all of the time?" They looked at me like I was crazy.
In a certain sense.. you were crazy, at least at Microsoft.
The origins of an OS really show through a lot of the time. Windows started out as a single user OS, so rebooting was OK because the only person you messed up was the guy sitting in front of the screen. It eventually evolved into a multi-user OS, but the "just reboot!" mentality persists to this day.
Linux/Unix on the other hand started out life as a multi-user OS. Rebooting was a big no-no, because you'd affect countless people logged in, and you'd get yelled at for ruining someones work.
It's funny the attitude that comes from the users of each OS. Windows administrators categorically will try rebooting the damn thing first to fix any problem (and it usually works). Linux administrators will only try this as a last resort (and it almost never works).
Anyway, at Microsoft the idea that you can somehow tweak windows just right so rebooting isn't necessary is crazy. They designed the damn thing so "just reboot!" will fix any problem. This of course is an unacceptable solution to a lot of people out their, but for a lot of people it's obviously reality.
A fan can't draw much more than a few watts. What's the point? It seems like a complicated array of technology just to save a few watts of power. You'd be better off buying a more efficient power supply if you wanted to be "green".
Although there's lots of it around, current estimates show that it will only last for about 200 more years
What the hell are you talking about? Aluminum is likely the most recycled metal on the planet. Why would we "run out" of something we re-use, and is the most abundant metal in the earths crust? It might get more expensive.. but we won't "run out".
How are we in these United States different when compared to the so called "third world" countries - specifically relating to issues like these?
My guess is in many of the "third world" countries you'll be expected to bribe officials to correct an error like this. Of course, you could also probably bribe someone to list your enemy as dead as well.
Is that better? I guess it is if you're someone with a lot of money to throw around at bribes it is.
I kind of doubt there's retirement benefits in most third world countries.. because most people don't live until retirement age. I doubt most people can afford to get a loan. I'm unfamiliar with healthcare in third world countries.. but I kind of doubt most people can afford it, even if/when it's available. So yah, I guess being declared dead in a third world country has less impact because there's just nothing really to lose.
You're saying that's better?
Rather than "they used a supercomputer to do physics"
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=08-x5
But this is really their fault because they blew it in the seventies with total shitpiles everywhere.
Yes and no.
US automakers were doing OK in the 90s, mostly propped up by every idiot having to buy a bigger and bigger SUV than the next guy. Then gas prices went up (surprise!)
I agree US automakers are dumbasses, and it only took a couple brain cells to figure out gas prices would go up at SOME point. I just think they're dumbasses for different reasons.
Actually, the reason is that you put someone through 12 years of school, and he doesn't want to work in a chicken processing plant anymore.
Nonsense. People don't want to do those jobs at the wages offered, and the work conditions present.
it doesn't make any economic sense to force a decently educated worker into a job that could be filled for much less cost by someone who has no education at all.
More pure nonsense. Are you trying to tell me the education system is that much different than it was 30 years ago? I'll be willing to bet those plants were filled with US citizens then. What's changed now other than a large influx of cheap labor from Mexico?
There's plenty of jobs that people with high school education do already that don't require much in the way of education. Auto plant workers make good wages. Do they need a higher level of education than other plant workers, or is it just the fact that they were unionized many years ago and the conditions and wages improved?
No, I'm not saying unions solve all problems. But treating the workplace as static, and unchanging with the available labor pool is just plain incorrect.
It's not fair to target one small group just because they have money.
Fair? Fair to who?
Civil law isn't about what's "fair", civil law is about liability. It's not a big stretch to think that the guys who pull the stuff out of the ground are certainly liable for creating global warming. If they want to also sue "everyone in the world", I guess they can... but that's simply not practical, and I doubt even possible in a court of law.
Turn off the safe-search filter for images and try searching for snowball. You should be able to find something vaguely pornographic in short order.
I did (I always have safesearch off because I think it's dumb). There weren't any.
just what technical problems could shut down five reactors?
If the article submitter had actually read the article, he might have noted the nuclear plants shut down because of an under voltage in the rest of the system (caused by a breakdown elsewhere). My guess is this is some kind of safety measure, otherwise why would you have the system shut down?
Here are two terms with serious double-entendres: red wings and snowballs.
Your inability to actually DO the search on either of those terms doesn't really surprise me, however. Neither of those searches turned up anything even near pornographic on at least the first 4 pages.
Why you actually have to remain "anonymous" for knowing some dumb sex or porn term is beyond me.
The stuff that is supposed to filtered is still there, and often shows up on otherwise innocuous searches.
I hear people talk about this "I was just searching for something innocuous" all the time, but have yet to experience it, after 10+ years of doing search engine searches.
What the hell are you people searching for?
I don't know anyone who's ever been surfing a website, saw an ad for a gadget, or a shirt, or anything, and said "Wow, I just found out I need to buy that!"
Advertising doesn't really work like that. Much of advertising is just an attempt to create familiarity. So when you DO suddenly decide you "need to buy that!" you'll at least have a passing familiarity with the product that was advertised to you.
First, you didn't answer my question.
Because I don't accept the premise that health insurance is like hurricane insurance. I will tell you this though, if people in Nebraska have to pay more to help another part of the country survive, I'm all for it. Any society relies on everyone else to keep it strong.
Second, someone without legs isn't broken down. I think they have a great ability to contribute.
Says you. Others might feel otherwise. Who's going to make these big decisions about who's "fundamentally broken", and who's not? I guess I think it's more than a little sick if it's the guy trying to make an extra buck.
"Sorry sir, our strategy director has determined it's just not economically feasible to continue your treatment. You see, our stock price just took a tumble, and we're trying to prop it up a bit by decreasing costs. I hope you understand. It just wouldn't be fair to the stockholders, or the other people we keep insured."
I know it may sound heartless and uncivilized, but at what point is a person who is fundamentally broken down kicked off the public teat?
It not only sounds heartless and uncivilized, it actually is. Do you really want a society where there's legless people scrawling around on skateboards begging for food because they're "fundamentally broken down"? It wasn't that long ago we did, and I consider it progress that the developed world mostly doesn't have that anymore. Evolution has really nothing to do with it.
To use a real life example, does it make sense that the people in Nebraska should have to carry the insurance burden for the people who choose to live in hurricane alley?
I don't really know. But at least you can choose to not live in "hurricane alley". I'm not sure what the big alternative is here for people who are "fundamentally broken". Death?
Insurance is all about modeling the risks for an individual based on available medical data.
No, Insurance PROFITS are all about modeling the risks. Insurance is actually about distributing unknown risk among a large number of people. If I had a time machine and could look into the future and see if I'd ever need insurance, the whole thing would become completely pointless, as I'd know exactly what was going to happen. If the insurance company had access to my "time machine test results", they'd either cancel my health insurance if I was going to get sick, or I'd just sock all that money away in a bank account if I wasn't.
In *theory*, if genetic screening can increase the accuracy, then people with clean genetic situations should get decreased rates from what they pay now, while those with the dispositions carry the burden of the risk.
I think what people are really concerned about here is that certain individuals will just not be able to get health insurance. We don't really worry about that for car insurance, or flood insurance, or whatever, since you can always choose to not drive, or live somewhere else. Without health insurance, the only real alternative if you get gravely ill is death, or bankruptcy and losing your job (then maybe medicaid will take over). I think most people would say those aren't very good alternatives.