A good "real world" test would be putting it on a database server that churns data with disks at near-full capacity (perhaps 24/7) - but then, how would you measure the performance? With a "real world" script? The problem with benchmarks...
Well, that's the real-world database test. On the other hand, there's the real-world rgrep test, the real-world cp -a test, the INN nightly expire-and-so-on maintenance test (that I suspect would blow away ext2 due to the number of files/directories processed), et cetra ad nauseum. All of whose results are going to depend on things like the percentage of the disk used and probably other things not imagined before actual measurements of their effects. I wouldn't expect the effect to stay the same between different versions of the same database engine either.
But you should include a few simulated power failures and fscks in there, if you are intent ("24x7") on modelling the real world, shouldn't you? And maybe the time to repair or restore a backup of the database if it proves necessary after those power-downs.
Oops, it's not yet in the standard kernel. Oops, the patches don't apply against the latest, most debugged versions of the kernel. Not, it's not time to switch now. I'll stay with stable and standard functions, thanks
Let me check menuconfig on what I got from kernel.org... okay, Linux Kernel v2.4.4 Configuration: File systems... Quota support... Kernel automounter support... Kernel automounter version 4 support (also supports v3)... Reiserfs support.
So what you're saying is that your ISP oversells it's bandwidth: you don't have enough capacity for everyone to use what they've paid for at the same time.
Two different things. I haven't noticed any unacceptably slow connections, so I would say they don't oversell their bandwidth.
But of course they don't buy enough capacity for everyone to use the maximum bandwidth of their connection at once, that would be ridiculous.
The fact is people don't all use all their bandwidth all the time. They get what they pay for - if they were paying for a reserved channel to the Internet backbones that would cost more than what the ISP paid for that much bandwidth, they need to make a profit somehow.
So it's a business ethics problem, not one of customer abuse.
Still, video and audio data will be - probably is - transmitted in encrypted form when confidentiality is required, over PPTP links for company "extranets", etc.
I suspect (hope) that with a secure protocol it would be difficult to classify the traffic inside, as I understand is beingh proposed.
Ah, but what does it do when it cannot interpret the content from the packet type? Say "hey, this is an SSL packet, who knows, it might contain video or someone's electrocardiogram data, so give it highest priority just in case"?
Re:Intelligent Routing
on
Smart Routers
·
· Score: 2
Not that this will actually solve that problem. It just means that all the routers on the path across the country and back will decide to deprioritize your traffic so the connection will be slower.
The reason it bounces across the country isn't technological, it's 'business'.
Business is exactly why that won't happen. How many routers will implement this stuff at once? Not too many. One corporation's segment of the Internet backbone at a time, at the fastest. Result: angry customers - lawsuits and courts interpreting contracts for guaranteed bandwidth broken - cat and dogs, living together - et cetra until the features are disabled.
Most of the router buyers won't purchase processing power beyond what is needed for plain vanilla routing anyway, plus processing some access lists at most, and the ballooning of the routing tables is likely to suck up enough router cycles that any multi-homed network will have to pass on the new "features".
Maybe it will come in as a lump feature everywhere simultaneously along with actual IPv6 usage. I doubt it.
Thank you. It is customers like you who mean my own ISP has enough outgoing bandwidth (after their own web hosting) that they can and do allow servers to be run.
Not just the clutch. No engine braking with a turbine either. Maybe it has a transmission brake?
One type of rerouting that would be nice...
on
Smart Routers
·
· Score: 1
Is if this could be taken to the level of moving commonly-used data to multicast channels. How much of the Internet traffic is static content from commonly-accessed sites?
Maybe in a decade it will be taken for granted that the low bandwidth data comes from your main connection, and most of the packets for the Star Wars Part 9 trailer come from the TV's tuner, broadcast on a TV station's spare digital subchannels to the larger audience. We'll see what happens.
The bike was initially speed tested on a then recently constructed but closed highway. They had the state police out, with radar guns. The radar guns they had topped out at 200 mph. The bike was moving faster than that.
So nobody remembered to bring a stopwatch? Nah, I guess that wouldn't look as cool on TV.
In any case, solar cells aren't necessarily required for Solar Power Satellites. You could use a mylar film and collect the sunlight as heat for more conventional generation.
When a planet's civilisation reaches a certain level, they try to put up Solar Power Satellites.
Inevitably, putting this much mass in orbit is a disaster. Small collisions spawn larger clouds of debris until the entire planet is surrounded by a cloud of projectiles no spacecraft can traverse.
At this point the planet's civilisation, already depending on space technology, dies in violent spasms or by vegetating slowly away.
I just hope they calculated with the energy spent on bringing those solar panels in position. A rocket uses huge amounts of energy to enter orbit.
And what about maintaining.. they gonna send electritions up to the moon when things break... sounds rather costly:)
The first is a good point.
Actually, making the solar panels on the Moon isn't that bad an idea. Or at least grabbing more of the resources from there, a lot less costly (in energy) to move mass from the Lunar surface to geosysnc earth orbit than from the Earth's gravity well.
Same for electricians, really, given a lunar base/factory.
Re:Read the article, kids
on
Got Tracks?
·
· Score: 1
Well, wait...
Then these are chains.
Come to think of it, chains on tires are tracks, too.
"The craft [X-34] is designed to have a small ground and support crew of about 12 people to service it and provide a two-week turnaround time between flights."
The bottem line is: only idiots get infected by cheese, but it's better than what they had before. And it's certainly better for the rest of us.
Granted. Though I would prefer the proposed version that didn't scan but only defensively spread itself to other probing systems, its attackers. My post was addressing this part of what I replied to:
The worm installs itself on the macine, checks for the instalation version, logs into the bug report homepage for that distribution, and updates all of your packages or binaries from a set list of servers...
Someone using an RPM distribution, to name one package manager, soon learns that if they update the original software themselves (configure, make, make test, install) that it is better to leave the system thinking the old packages you are replacing are still installed. otherwise you are going to have to force the package manager to ignore what it thinks are dependency problems. Sometimes what is updated is only one important part of a package. Grabbing new versions and blindly installing them over what is already there would actually penalize those who update their software before official updates are available, should they miss the one hole the worm might use.
The bottom line is that this addition would downgrade the software on a system which does not restrict itself to the official packages. In other words, about all servers that do anything interesting. The software is modified to perform functions. Security is essential, but worthless if it keeps the server from functioning. Or overloads the update sites it uses.
Lion worm is fixable. The proposed trashing of the installed software base is less likely to be.
If a version of this appeared that installed itself on old, insecurely configured versions of Norton PcAnywhere and similar software, as well as sticking itself up BackOrifaces, and closed the security hole involved?
Would they update to new software (for the desired installs, of course) or would most want to just reinstall the open barn door?
The worm installs itself on the macine, checks for the instalation version, logs into the bug report homepage for that distribution, and updates all of your packages or binaries from a set list of servers...
It'll need to detect I've rebuilt Sendmail with regular expressions, and connect with some machine out on the net that has the same version of gcc, libraries, et cetra as I used on the build machine to create the binaries.
It'll do the same for SSH, turning on the ability to invoke it from inetd, and without opening the hole closed by turning off X forwarding.
It will need perhaps the skill to rebuild Apache properly to include mod_perl and OpenSSL.
Somehow it will know which of my two Perl binaries it will update.
Slashdot Mirror
A good "real world" test would be putting it on a database server that churns data with disks at near-full capacity (perhaps 24/7) - but then, how would you measure the performance? With a "real world" script? The problem with benchmarks...
Well, that's the real-world database test. On the other hand, there's the real-world rgrep test, the real-world cp -a test, the INN nightly expire-and-so-on maintenance test (that I suspect would blow away ext2 due to the number of files/directories processed), et cetra ad nauseum. All of whose results are going to depend on things like the percentage of the disk used and probably other things not imagined before actual measurements of their effects. I wouldn't expect the effect to stay the same between different versions of the same database engine either.
But you should include a few simulated power failures and fscks in there, if you are intent ("24x7") on modelling the real world, shouldn't you? And maybe the time to repair or restore a backup of the database if it proves necessary after those power-downs.
Certainly the parts of EXT3 that EXT2 uses might be compatable.
Oops, it's not yet in the standard kernel. Oops, the patches don't apply against the latest, most debugged versions of the kernel. Not, it's not time to switch now. I'll stay with stable and standard functions, thanks
... Quota support ... Kernel automounter support ... Kernel automounter version 4 support (also supports v3) ... Reiserfs support.
Let me check menuconfig on what I got from kernel.org... okay, Linux Kernel v2.4.4 Configuration: File systems
It is in the latest stable kernel.
What are those dastards trying to do, make a profit or something?
So what you're saying is that your ISP oversells it's bandwidth: you don't have enough capacity for everyone to use what they've paid for at the same time.
Two different things. I haven't noticed any unacceptably slow connections, so I would say they don't oversell their bandwidth.
But of course they don't buy enough capacity for everyone to use the maximum bandwidth of their connection at once, that would be ridiculous.
The fact is people don't all use all their bandwidth all the time. They get what they pay for - if they were paying for a reserved channel to the Internet backbones that would cost more than what the ISP paid for that much bandwidth, they need to make a profit somehow.
So it's a business ethics problem, not one of customer abuse.
It isn't a problem at all as far as I can see.
Still, video and audio data will be - probably is - transmitted in encrypted form when confidentiality is required, over PPTP links for company "extranets", etc.
I suspect (hope) that with a secure protocol it would be difficult to classify the traffic inside, as I understand is beingh proposed.
Ah, but what does it do when it cannot interpret the content from the packet type? Say "hey, this is an SSL packet, who knows, it might contain video or someone's electrocardiogram data, so give it highest priority just in case"?
Not that this will actually solve that problem. It just means that all the routers on the path across the country and back will decide to deprioritize your traffic so the connection will be slower.
The reason it bounces across the country isn't technological, it's 'business'.
Business is exactly why that won't happen. How many routers will implement this stuff at once? Not too many. One corporation's segment of the Internet backbone at a time, at the fastest. Result: angry customers - lawsuits and courts interpreting contracts for guaranteed bandwidth broken - cat and dogs, living together - et cetra until the features are disabled.
Most of the router buyers won't purchase processing power beyond what is needed for plain vanilla routing anyway, plus processing some access lists at most, and the ballooning of the routing tables is likely to suck up enough router cycles that any multi-homed network will have to pass on the new "features".
Maybe it will come in as a lump feature everywhere simultaneously along with actual IPv6 usage. I doubt it.
Thank you. It is customers like you who mean my own ISP has enough outgoing bandwidth (after their own web hosting) that they can and do allow servers to be run.
Not just the clutch. No engine braking with a turbine either. Maybe it has a transmission brake?
Is if this could be taken to the level of moving commonly-used data to multicast channels. How much of the Internet traffic is static content from commonly-accessed sites?
Maybe in a decade it will be taken for granted that the low bandwidth data comes from your main connection, and most of the packets for the Star Wars Part 9 trailer come from the TV's tuner, broadcast on a TV station's spare digital subchannels to the larger audience. We'll see what happens.
Oh, ok. I think my old Corvair Corsa could have come pretty close to that.
Come to think of it, I've seen a cycle with a Corvair engine too.
Shrug.
"`At idle, it's making 10 horsepower'"
Makes me wonder at what point in the drivetrain the 10hp of work is being consumed. Assuming the thing isn't burning rubber at idle.
The bike was initially speed tested on a then recently constructed but closed highway. They had the state police out, with radar guns. The radar guns they had topped out at 200 mph. The bike was moving faster than that.
So nobody remembered to bring a stopwatch? Nah, I guess that wouldn't look as cool on TV.
Not to mention "stump pulling torque" is low-end torque. I don't imagine this bike builds up it's 425 ft/lbs until the upper RPM range.
Excerpt from the linked page:
Power: 320 hp @ 52,000 rpm (286 hp @ rear wheel)
Torque: 425 ft lbs @ 2,000 rpm
Looks like they want to measure torque at the low RPM end.
heheh Rear mirrors are replaced by a ccd, can you say webcast, screw the jenny cam, I want a bike cam.
But how long at 250 MPH until you run out of cat5?
In any case, solar cells aren't necessarily required for Solar Power Satellites. You could use a mylar film and collect the sunlight as heat for more conventional generation.
When a planet's civilisation reaches a certain level, they try to put up Solar Power Satellites.
Inevitably, putting this much mass in orbit is a disaster. Small collisions spawn larger clouds of debris until the entire planet is surrounded by a cloud of projectiles no spacecraft can traverse.
At this point the planet's civilisation, already depending on space technology, dies in violent spasms or by vegetating slowly away.
I just hope they calculated with the energy spent on bringing those solar panels in position. A rocket uses huge amounts of energy to enter orbit. :)
And what about maintaining.. they gonna send electritions up to the moon when things break... sounds rather costly
The first is a good point.
Actually, making the solar panels on the Moon isn't that bad an idea. Or at least grabbing more of the resources from there, a lot less costly (in energy) to move mass from the Lunar surface to geosysnc earth orbit than from the Earth's gravity well.
Same for electricians, really, given a lunar base/factory.
Well, wait...
Then these are chains.
Come to think of it, chains on tires are tracks, too.
"The craft [X-34] is designed to have a small ground and support crew of about 12 people to service it and provide a two-week turnaround time between flights."
Can we say "layoffs"?
The bottem line is: only idiots get infected by cheese, but it's better than what they had before. And it's certainly better for the rest of us.
Granted. Though I would prefer the proposed version that didn't scan but only defensively spread itself to other probing systems, its attackers. My post was addressing this part of what I replied to:
The worm installs itself on the macine, checks for the instalation version, logs into the bug report homepage for that distribution, and updates all of your packages or binaries from a set list of servers...
Someone using an RPM distribution, to name one package manager, soon learns that if they update the original software themselves (configure, make, make test, install) that it is better to leave the system thinking the old packages you are replacing are still installed. otherwise you are going to have to force the package manager to ignore what it thinks are dependency problems. Sometimes what is updated is only one important part of a package. Grabbing new versions and blindly installing them over what is already there would actually penalize those who update their software before official updates are available, should they miss the one hole the worm might use.
The bottom line is that this addition would downgrade the software on a system which does not restrict itself to the official packages. In other words, about all servers that do anything interesting. The software is modified to perform functions. Security is essential, but worthless if it keeps the server from functioning. Or overloads the update sites it uses.
Lion worm is fixable. The proposed trashing of the installed software base is less likely to be.
If a version of this appeared that installed itself on old, insecurely configured versions of Norton PcAnywhere and similar software, as well as sticking itself up BackOrifaces, and closed the security hole involved?
Would they update to new software (for the desired installs, of course) or would most want to just reinstall the open barn door?
The worm installs itself on the macine, checks for the instalation version, logs into the bug report homepage for that distribution, and updates all of your packages or binaries from a set list of servers...
It'll need to detect I've rebuilt Sendmail with regular expressions, and connect with some machine out on the net that has the same version of gcc, libraries, et cetra as I used on the build machine to create the binaries.
It'll do the same for SSH, turning on the ability to invoke it from inetd, and without opening the hole closed by turning off X forwarding.
It will need perhaps the skill to rebuild Apache properly to include mod_perl and OpenSSL.
Somehow it will know which of my two Perl binaries it will update.
I think I know what to name it.