Not all of the 360 packages came with wireless controllers. If I recall correctly, the original Core package came with a wired controller while the Premium package came with a wireless controller.
A little while back, the law that did not allow liquor stores to be open on Sundays was changed. Now, it is up to the leasee whether or not they want to be open on Sunday or not. You can see which ones are open from their list.
You know that Madonna's label, Maverick Records, is under the Warner umbrella. That means that there will be a good chance that you will start seeing her albums available under this deal.
Blu-Ray is not limited to MPEG-2, but can also handle AVC MPEG-4 as seen on the Discovery Atlas Blu-Ray versions.
I do agree that Blu-Ray has an inherent cost disadvantage to HD-DVD, due to manufacturing differences between the two formats and Blu-Ray players costing more (on average) than HD-DVD players.
This clearly underscores the RIAA's hypocrisy in that their thesis includes the tenet they are out to protect the artists, but if more exposure, and ultimately more happy consumers and sellers all around doesn't fit the definition of "protection", I'm at a loss.
I think "protect the artists" should be interpreted as: protecting their profits and control over their artists that have signed to the labels covered under the RIAA.
Independent artists and labels that are not under the RIAA umbrella are non-existant from the RIAA's point of view when it comes to protection.
I think the bottleneck will first be with your network connection (primarily if it's 100Mbps). With Gigabit Ethernet, your hard drives or drive array would be the next bottleneck (mostly if your network and storage controller are on the same PCI bus).
A lot of the SOHO NAS boxes run off of ARM processors, which are both power efficient but also able to handle the basic I/O needs of a NAS box. Granted, SOHO NAS boxes aren't meant for large companies or large workgroups, but would fit in as a departmental file server for testing or near-distance storage.
Higher end NAS boxes due use more powerful servers to handle 1+ Gigabit Ethernet connections, iSCSI or Fibre Channel, multiple PCI-X busses or multiple 4-8x PCI Express drops, and large amounts of RAM for caching and such. For instance, the latest corporate NAS boxes fron Snap/Adaptec use Opteron processors.
I've ran a small workgroup file server off of a Pentium Pro 200/256K with 256MB of RAM and several 9GB SCSI drives in RAID-5 and the bottleneck was definitely the two 100Mbps Ethernet connections. Of course, YMMV.
Although HT 3.0 will be a very good step to bring the Opteron closer to the Origin architecture, but the Opteron still lacks or does not have good implementationse of the cache coherency and other caching features of NUMAlink used in the Origin servers/clusters. The Horus chipset helps in some ways, but doesn't help scaling beyond 8P in a glueless fashion.
Rather: 80 cores per processor package and 2 threads per core.
That equates to: 160 threads per processor package.
For instance: even though the Montecito Itanium is capable of four-threads per processor package, it is only a dual-core (each core is capable of two threads).
I think the other reason Microsoft is keeping the release date of the business version is in part due to Software Assurance coverage. If a company's Software Assurance coverage expires before the business release date, then the company will need to renew the Software Assurance maintenance. Delaying the business release date could potentially piss off even more customers with Software Assurance, which many are already not happy with the cost nor the benefits the coverage provides.
The same near-nightmare came true prior to the release of Office 2003, in which Microsoft not only previously delayed the product's launch, but also created a separate version of Office 2003 Professional that would only be available through volume licensing. The multiple editions and delay scenario of Vista is getting a bit too similar to the Office 2003 bit.
In the case of Office 2003, Microsoft allowed those that had Upgrade Advantage/Software Assurance on Office Standard licenses the ability to use the corporate versions rather than be locked to the non-corporate versions.
For Vista, Microsoft will only make the enterprise edition available to those that have active Software Assurance coverage on Windows Professional licenses when they release the bugger.
You can use the allow-recursion directive to limit the IP addresses that are allowed to do recursion. For instance, if your internal IP space is 192.168.0.0/24 and want to allow localhost recursion, use the following in the options section of named.conf.
allow-recursion { 127.0.0.1; 192.168.0.0/24; };
I don't know if it's foolproof, but it's better than no restrictions at all.
It may not be a retail product, but you can always get a Soekris kit that has multiple Ethernet interfaces, 128 or 256MB of RAM and supports CF for additional storage for around $300 (net4801-50, 128MB version, with a total of 5 Ethernet interfaces).
It runs off of a 586-class processor and with all of the fixins, would only draw around 20-25W. Not bad for something that can run Linux or *BSD. I haven't messed with one yet, but they do look pretty good even for a small server that can provide: SSH, FTP, web, NTP, DNS, DHCP, etc. Heck, it may replace my Sun Blade 100 one of these days;)
You mean like this motherboard with four copper, plus four SFPs that can accept copper or fiber modules? Now if only they could combine it to 2 10 Gig Ethernet plus two Gig Ethernet, that would be one kick-ass server:)
The Cisco Catalyst 4000/4500-series switches (and it's stackable equivalent, whose model number eludes me right now) are not meant for high performance, but rather port density and port aggregation (wiring closets, desktops, VOIP, wireless). For high performance switching, the 3750-series, the 4948 and the 6500-series switches would be much better options for bandwidth aggregation, high-performance, and clustering.
Where I work, we use the 4000-series switches to get 192 10/100 ports available where performance is obviously the last worry, while the 6000-series is used for uplinks and Gigabit connectivity. Of course, the base 6500-series Supervisor Engine only has 32Gbps of shared bandwidth, so going with a higher-end Supervisor Engine and distributed Fabric cards, you can scale to 256+ Gbps.
I guess whomever chose that Cisco switch didn't really do his/her research;)
For those who need to have large flat or single system image memory requirements, the Itanium can handle up to 50-bits of physical memory addressing and 64-bit of virtual addressing [1] where the Opteron can address 40-bits of physical memory addressing and 48-bit of virtual addressing.
Right now, the Opteron can scale up to 8 sockets using HyperTransport (at least until the Horus chipset becomes available) while the Itanium can scale into massive number of sockets (which is more of a function of chipset rather than processor).
Although it may not run as cool and will use around 100W of peak power (+/- 10%), Montecito will be dual-core and run at around 1.6-1.8GHz at launch. 100W is less power than the current high-end Xeon MP and just over the Sun US-IV+ processors, but each of the two cores gets 12MB of L3 cache. Compare that to the ~120-130W power envelope of the mid/high-end Itanium processors available right now.
Granted, the Itanium is not the fastest enterprise-focused processor out there, but at least they are trying to reduce the overall power consumption and heat generation of the next-gen Itaniums.
For the workload I deal with everyday, the Opteron and US-T1 are better suited.
The upgrade from 4.x to the 5.x branch was a significant change, everything from a major compiler version upgrade, compatibility libraries, and other core files changed.
I have migrated 6 machines from 5.4-RELEASE to 6.0-RC1 without any problems with recompiling ports (including: Postfix, Perl, SpamAssassin, Python, Apache 2.0, PHP 5, PostgreSQL). You may want to go with the stock GENERIC kernel configuration file that comes with 6.0-RELEASE and trim it back down as some of the options have changed.
Also, check out the changes in/etc/make.conf variables.
You may want to try the latest build of 6.0-RC1 on the Sun Blade 100, or disable ATA DMA if you are using IDE hard drives in that machine. I also have a Sun Blade 100 that throw fits with ATA DMA enabled, but the problem was fixed prior to 6.0-RC1 was released.
You can have both Intel and AMD blade servers within the same chassis. The only thing that would make this different (and their site is not very clear on this) is if you can have both an Intel and an AMD processor within the same blade module.
The 130W number is the maximum TDP (Thermal Design Power) for that line of processors, so it may not hit 130W even in peak usage. AMD uses the same kind of logic behind their power numbers as well. Unless if you are running several CPU burn-like programs at once, the processor will average below that number, mostly when the throttler kicks in so that the processor doesn't burn up.
I believe the newer versions of the Athlon and Pentium 4/D processors will scale back clock speed and/or voltage in order to preserve power (be it through Enhanced SpeedStep or AMD's equivalent).
Video needs to be in a very specific format to play off a memory card: MPEG4, 29.97 fps, exact resolution (the system is much more forgiving playing MP3s and photos).
I have used PSP Video 9 to recode some DVDs and other video clips in ~15fps. 29.97fps isn't a requirement and you can select a couple of other video sizes as well. So far, I have only tried 320x240 at ~15fps and 29.97fps; I use the former to reduce the size of the resulting file. There is the option to encode video files in 16:9 ratio with the tool, but I haven't tried it out yet.
Re:Do you have a source for the 120M transistors ?
on
Forty Years of Moore's Law
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Keep in mind that the Montecito has 24MB of L3 cache, plus 2.5MB of L2 and 32K of L1 cache. You also need to include links between the two cores, the cores themselves, tags, bus interface and arbiter, plus redundant SRAM cells so that one or two defects doesn't render the die worthless.
I don't know how many additional SRAM cells Intel is planning in each of the cache levels, so the 1.2B transistors for cache can climb up to 1.4-1.6B.
Someone posted a number of 1.47B transistors for the L3 cache at Real World Tech. I'm not sure how credible or accurate that number is.
Slashdot Mirror
Not all of the 360 packages came with wireless controllers. If I recall correctly, the original Core package came with a wired controller while the Premium package came with a wireless controller.
If I remember correctly, the Lloyd Center Cinema is not to far away from the Oregon Convention Center (maybe a couple of blocks).
A little while back, the law that did not allow liquor stores to be open on Sundays was changed. Now, it is up to the leasee whether or not they want to be open on Sunday or not. You can see which ones are open from their list.
You know that Madonna's label, Maverick Records, is under the Warner umbrella. That means that there will be a good chance that you will start seeing her albums available under this deal.
Blu-Ray is not limited to MPEG-2, but can also handle AVC MPEG-4 as seen on the Discovery Atlas Blu-Ray versions.
I do agree that Blu-Ray has an inherent cost disadvantage to HD-DVD, due to manufacturing differences between the two formats and Blu-Ray players costing more (on average) than HD-DVD players.
I think "protect the artists" should be interpreted as: protecting their profits and control over their artists that have signed to the labels covered under the RIAA.
Independent artists and labels that are not under the RIAA umbrella are non-existant from the RIAA's point of view when it comes to protection.
I think the bottleneck will first be with your network connection (primarily if it's 100Mbps). With Gigabit Ethernet, your hard drives or drive array would be the next bottleneck (mostly if your network and storage controller are on the same PCI bus).
A lot of the SOHO NAS boxes run off of ARM processors, which are both power efficient but also able to handle the basic I/O needs of a NAS box. Granted, SOHO NAS boxes aren't meant for large companies or large workgroups, but would fit in as a departmental file server for testing or near-distance storage.
Higher end NAS boxes due use more powerful servers to handle 1+ Gigabit Ethernet connections, iSCSI or Fibre Channel, multiple PCI-X busses or multiple 4-8x PCI Express drops, and large amounts of RAM for caching and such. For instance, the latest corporate NAS boxes fron Snap/Adaptec use Opteron processors.
I've ran a small workgroup file server off of a Pentium Pro 200/256K with 256MB of RAM and several 9GB SCSI drives in RAID-5 and the bottleneck was definitely the two 100Mbps Ethernet connections. Of course, YMMV.
Although HT 3.0 will be a very good step to bring the Opteron closer to the Origin architecture, but the Opteron still lacks or does not have good implementationse of the cache coherency and other caching features of NUMAlink used in the Origin servers/clusters. The Horus chipset helps in some ways, but doesn't help scaling beyond 8P in a glueless fashion.
Just my $0.01
Rather: 80 cores per processor package and 2 threads per core.
That equates to: 160 threads per processor package.
For instance: even though the Montecito Itanium is capable of four-threads per processor package, it is only a dual-core (each core is capable of two threads).
I think the other reason Microsoft is keeping the release date of the business version is in part due to Software Assurance coverage. If a company's Software Assurance coverage expires before the business release date, then the company will need to renew the Software Assurance maintenance. Delaying the business release date could potentially piss off even more customers with Software Assurance, which many are already not happy with the cost nor the benefits the coverage provides.
The same near-nightmare came true prior to the release of Office 2003, in which Microsoft not only previously delayed the product's launch, but also created a separate version of Office 2003 Professional that would only be available through volume licensing. The multiple editions and delay scenario of Vista is getting a bit too similar to the Office 2003 bit.
In the case of Office 2003, Microsoft allowed those that had Upgrade Advantage/Software Assurance on Office Standard licenses the ability to use the corporate versions rather than be locked to the non-corporate versions.
For Vista, Microsoft will only make the enterprise edition available to those that have active Software Assurance coverage on Windows Professional licenses when they release the bugger.
You can use the allow-recursion directive to limit the IP addresses that are allowed to do recursion. For instance, if your internal IP space is 192.168.0.0/24 and want to allow localhost recursion, use the following in the options section of named.conf.
allow-recursion { 127.0.0.1; 192.168.0.0/24; };
I don't know if it's foolproof, but it's better than no restrictions at all.
It may not be a retail product, but you can always get a Soekris kit that has multiple Ethernet interfaces, 128 or 256MB of RAM and supports CF for additional storage for around $300 (net4801-50, 128MB version, with a total of 5 Ethernet interfaces).
;)
http://www.soekris.com/net4801.htm
It runs off of a 586-class processor and with all of the fixins, would only draw around 20-25W. Not bad for something that can run Linux or *BSD. I haven't messed with one yet, but they do look pretty good even for a small server that can provide: SSH, FTP, web, NTP, DNS, DHCP, etc. Heck, it may replace my Sun Blade 100 one of these days
You mean like this motherboard with four copper, plus four SFPs that can accept copper or fiber modules? Now if only they could combine it to 2 10 Gig Ethernet plus two Gig Ethernet, that would be one kick-ass server :)
The Cisco Catalyst 4000/4500-series switches (and it's stackable equivalent, whose model number eludes me right now) are not meant for high performance, but rather port density and port aggregation (wiring closets, desktops, VOIP, wireless). For high performance switching, the 3750-series, the 4948 and the 6500-series switches would be much better options for bandwidth aggregation, high-performance, and clustering.
;)
Where I work, we use the 4000-series switches to get 192 10/100 ports available where performance is obviously the last worry, while the 6000-series is used for uplinks and Gigabit connectivity. Of course, the base 6500-series Supervisor Engine only has 32Gbps of shared bandwidth, so going with a higher-end Supervisor Engine and distributed Fabric cards, you can scale to 256+ Gbps.
I guess whomever chose that Cisco switch didn't really do his/her research
For those who need to have large flat or single system image memory requirements, the Itanium can handle up to 50-bits of physical memory addressing and 64-bit of virtual addressing [1] where the Opteron can address 40-bits of physical memory addressing and 48-bit of virtual addressing.
s /25094504.pdf
Right now, the Opteron can scale up to 8 sockets using HyperTransport (at least until the Horus chipset becomes available) while the Itanium can scale into massive number of sockets (which is more of a function of chipset rather than processor).
[1]: Page 9: http://download.intel.com/design/Itanium2/datasht
Although it may not run as cool and will use around 100W of peak power (+/- 10%), Montecito will be dual-core and run at around 1.6-1.8GHz at launch. 100W is less power than the current high-end Xeon MP and just over the Sun US-IV+ processors, but each of the two cores gets 12MB of L3 cache. Compare that to the ~120-130W power envelope of the mid/high-end Itanium processors available right now.
Granted, the Itanium is not the fastest enterprise-focused processor out there, but at least they are trying to reduce the overall power consumption and heat generation of the next-gen Itaniums.
For the workload I deal with everyday, the Opteron and US-T1 are better suited.
The upgrade from 4.x to the 5.x branch was a significant change, everything from a major compiler version upgrade, compatibility libraries, and other core files changed.
/etc/make.conf variables.
I have migrated 6 machines from 5.4-RELEASE to 6.0-RC1 without any problems with recompiling ports (including: Postfix, Perl, SpamAssassin, Python, Apache 2.0, PHP 5, PostgreSQL). You may want to go with the stock GENERIC kernel configuration file that comes with 6.0-RELEASE and trim it back down as some of the options have changed.
Also, check out the changes in
You may want to try the latest build of 6.0-RC1 on the Sun Blade 100, or disable ATA DMA if you are using IDE hard drives in that machine. I also have a Sun Blade 100 that throw fits with ATA DMA enabled, but the problem was fixed prior to 6.0-RC1 was released.
You can have both Intel and AMD blade servers within the same chassis. The only thing that would make this different (and their site is not very clear on this) is if you can have both an Intel and an AMD processor within the same blade module.
The 130W number is the maximum TDP (Thermal Design Power) for that line of processors, so it may not hit 130W even in peak usage. AMD uses the same kind of logic behind their power numbers as well. Unless if you are running several CPU burn-like programs at once, the processor will average below that number, mostly when the throttler kicks in so that the processor doesn't burn up.
I believe the newer versions of the Athlon and Pentium 4/D processors will scale back clock speed and/or voltage in order to preserve power (be it through Enhanced SpeedStep or AMD's equivalent).
I believe the laptops mentioned in the summary are made by Tadpole and one other company, but will probably be branded as Sun laptops.
The Inq has a picture of the flash drive at http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23425.
That link points to 8.0 Beta 1 for Windows. This is the directory for the release of 8.0 for Windows.
Keep in mind that the Montecito has 24MB of L3 cache, plus 2.5MB of L2 and 32K of L1 cache. You also need to include links between the two cores, the cores themselves, tags, bus interface and arbiter, plus redundant SRAM cells so that one or two defects doesn't render the die worthless.
W T100404214638&p=4
I don't know how many additional SRAM cells Intel is planning in each of the cache levels, so the 1.2B transistors for cache can climb up to 1.4-1.6B.
Someone posted a number of 1.47B transistors for the L3 cache at Real World Tech. I'm not sure how credible or accurate that number is.
Another article on RWT shows approximate die floor plan and othat info at:
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=R