If there's a zombie near me, I don't care what caused it. I don't care to find the source of the infection, or develop a cure. I just want it dead. Again.
Prioritize your work, CDC. Start with cancer and stuff.
His argument will be that they are sanctioned by corporate IT departments? You mean, these tablets that don't even exist yet? How does he know? Did he say the same thing about Windows Vista-based machines six months before they were released?
Several companies, mine included, already support the iPad, so this "sales pitch" is less than compelling to me.
How this Ballmer guy still has a job is beyond me.
this has always puzzled me. i can't see believing in god as something that can withstand simple questions. i mean, if the life on earth is too complex to have originated on itself and somebody created it, then that how did that somebody come to be ? did somebody else create him (and why not her;) ) ? if somebody else, we get into a loop, where we still have to break out at some point. if not, then there can be no scientific, critical thinking that could accept the "he just exists, you may not question that". so how could a chain of logical arguments convince a person of gods existence ?
God's existence and God's beginning are two distinctly different topics to discuss. But isn't it pretty much the same with the Universe itself? I mean, even if you accept the big bang theory, the contents that exploded had to come from somewhere, right? Just because you can't explain it's beginning, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
No, the EV68 has been out for quite some time, and it is in fact shipping in Wildfires as of recently at 1GHz. The technologies you're referring to are coming in the EV7 (21364), not due out for over a year, IIRC.
AIUI, there are two competing methods of scaling CPUs now - Symmetric Multi-threading (SMT), and Chip-level Multi Processing (CMP). HP is going CMP because SMT is too difficult in terms of writing the compilers. Both Compaq (with the Alpha CPU) and IBM (PowerX) are going SMT. In fact, the biggest thing Intel got out of it's purchase of Alpha technology, other than the engineers themselves, is the Alpha SMT work.
...than a simple vendor's word that their patch fixed my security hole. I want to be able to test it myself. Sorry, Mr. Culp, but I've been burned a few too many times.
1. 30GB is nothing - even Oracle on NT can handle that fine. I've got bigger databases than that on NT without a problem. A 30GB database doesn't mean 30GB files. And why would you intentionally mistype table names? 2. Raw devices are a thing of the past. The speed increase you're looking at nowadays for raw devices is almost negligible, and is nothing compared with the increased management capabilities and flexibility you get from working with a filesystem (esp. in the area of backup tools). Remember, raw devices also means only one file per disk. Considering today's drives are likely to be at least 9GB, it's easy to get a lot of waste there, especially when you want to split your files among multiple drives/controllers for performance reasons (that's where you'll get the biggest bang for the buck in terms of performance - remember I/O is almost always the culprit when it comes to database bottlenecks) 3. If you use Oracle, you will not be required to reload the database regularly just to keep a remote hot site. Oracle has standy-database functionality that allows you to take the archived redo logs (a copy of all the transactions issued to the database) from the primary, and simply ship those to the backup and apply them. That way, both databases are completely in sync while the data you're shipping is only as large as your transactions. And, considering this is a data warehouse, transactions are generally read-only, so you're talking virtually no traffic during normal use. That said, when you do your data loads (daily? weekly?), you're talking considerable traffic, but you can spread out the shipment of the logs to compensate for that. CigarBuff (Oracle/SAP DBA) P.S. $2K is way low for both the hardware and the database!
Linux doesn't HAVE to scale well to 32 CPUs
on
New Mega Alphas
·
· Score: 1
I see many posts that Linux can't efficiently handle 32 CPUs. They're missing the point when it comes to the GS320. This box has real partitioning such that Linux can run on 4 CPUs, and Tru64 can run on the rest. Carve it up even further - hell you could have a 8-node Beowulf cluster inside a single box.
And the hardware supports hot-swap RAM and CPU. Tru64 will support that in 5.1. Can't wait for that!!!
> Why buy an expensive Sun to be a development box... Why? Because your production box is a Sun box. You don't necessarily (unless you're using the dev box for performance testing) need to buy the same hardware, but do buy the same platform! Just because you develop it on Linux (or any other platform, for that matter), doesn't mean it will transport to your Sun box and run well there. I've seen it happen _many_ times when people decided to go cheap and get NT for dev, qa, sandbox, etc. I've even seen it UNIX to UNIX.
Okay, so how is this going to be refuted by Microsoft? Easy. SAP is a 3-tier architecture. You've got your clients, your application server (SAP R/3) and your database server (Oracle, Informix, DB2, MS SQL Server, etc.).
You can have as many application servers as you want, but you can only have one database (which could be comprised of multiple servers in a load-balancing cluster such as Digital UNIX's TruCluster on Alphas).
This Siemens test had both the application server and the database server on the same box. Not realistic. Not scalable. Not the way real companies use SAP.
Microsoft already has NT benchmarks with over 1,000 concurrent users. As long as your database server can handle it, you just stick 10 application servers (or however many you wish) out there to take the front end load, and boom - your results go up. In fact, I've seen some UNIX results with 40 application servers all hitting the same database.
Also, no companies are going to use this benchmark, since the database Siemens decided on was SAP DB. Years ago, SAP realized that they were too dependant on Oracle (they're the largest reseller of Oracle database servers). So, they set out to write their own database. Then they realized it's not that easy. No one bought it. I had heard that development of SAP DB was killed. Evidently not - it was just ported to Linux. Still, nobody uses it in the real world.
We're off to a great start here, but still have a long way to go. Still, thanks Siemens!
Dynamic DNS, if Microsoft is following the emerging RFC (yeah, right) give you the ability to automatically update your DNS tables if a machine's IP address changes. So, for example, if your machines are on DHCP, and their lease runs out and they get a new IP address, the DNS server will be updated to reflect this new address so that other clients will be able to resolve it's address.
What's the big deal? I've been doing this from my various UNIX boxes for years. And, I didn't need a half-assed (must be, since it's only for Windows) quasi-cracker utility to do it. I wonder how long it took them to copy the tcpdump source?
But, since you brought it up, I would think an organization like l0pht would have thought of a better name for their product. Hmm, let's see, a product that detects others who are promiscuous. How about Celibacy? Or Puritan? Guess they're going corporate, huh?
Besides being very poorly worded, your argument that "The definition of a Beowulf requires and "open source" OS" is simply incorrect. If you look back at why/when Beowulf was created (http://www.beowulf.org/intro.html), you'll find that it was from "their [the creators of Beowulf] idea of providing COTS (Commodity off the shelf) base systems to satisfy specific computational requirements."
Whether or not they used an open-source operating system is not the point. The goal was to provide an MPP system for as little cost as possible. If a collection of Tru64 UNIX workstations operating in a Beowulf cluster provides more computing performance at less cost than a similar system from a major MPP vendor, then it seems to meet the criteria for why Beowulf began. Sure, it might cost more than the same Alpha workstations running Linux, but it is also likely to perform better. Life's little tradeoffs are everywhere, aren't they?
Slashdot Mirror
If there's a zombie near me, I don't care what caused it. I don't care to find the source of the infection, or develop a cure. I just want it dead. Again.
Prioritize your work, CDC. Start with cancer and stuff.
"runs on the RISC processor architecture – which gives the solution the equivalent of 1.2GHz of x86 processing power."
"comes with either a 333MHz (800MHz x86 equivalent) or a 500MHz (1.2GHz x86 equivalent) RMI Au processor."
I always enjoy when people write articles without actually understanding what they're saying.
His argument will be that they are sanctioned by corporate IT departments? You mean, these tablets that don't even exist yet? How does he know? Did he say the same thing about Windows Vista-based machines six months before they were released?
Several companies, mine included, already support the iPad, so this "sales pitch" is less than compelling to me.
How this Ballmer guy still has a job is beyond me.
this has always puzzled me. ;) ) ?
i can't see believing in god as something that can withstand simple questions.
i mean, if the life on earth is too complex to have originated on itself and somebody created it, then that how did that somebody come to be ? did somebody else create him (and why not her
if somebody else, we get into a loop, where we still have to break out at some point.
if not, then there can be no scientific, critical thinking that could accept the "he just exists, you may not question that".
so how could a chain of logical arguments convince a person of gods existence ?
God's existence and God's beginning are two distinctly different topics to discuss. But isn't it pretty much the same with the Universe itself? I mean, even if you accept the big bang theory, the contents that exploded had to come from somewhere, right? Just because you can't explain it's beginning, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
No, the EV68 has been out for quite some time, and it is in fact shipping in Wildfires as of recently at 1GHz. The technologies you're referring to are coming in the EV7 (21364), not due out for over a year, IIRC.
FYI - All Alpha CPUs are EV-something.
Cheers,
CigarBuff
AIUI, there are two competing methods of scaling CPUs now - Symmetric Multi-threading (SMT), and Chip-level Multi Processing (CMP). HP is going CMP because SMT is too difficult in terms of writing the compilers. Both Compaq (with the Alpha CPU) and IBM (PowerX) are going SMT. In fact, the biggest thing Intel got out of it's purchase of Alpha technology, other than the engineers themselves, is the Alpha SMT work.
...than a simple vendor's word that their patch fixed my security hole. I want to be able to test it myself. Sorry, Mr. Culp, but I've been burned a few too many times.
1. 30GB is nothing - even Oracle on NT can handle that fine. I've got bigger databases than that on NT without a problem. A 30GB database doesn't mean 30GB files. And why would you intentionally mistype table names? 2. Raw devices are a thing of the past. The speed increase you're looking at nowadays for raw devices is almost negligible, and is nothing compared with the increased management capabilities and flexibility you get from working with a filesystem (esp. in the area of backup tools). Remember, raw devices also means only one file per disk. Considering today's drives are likely to be at least 9GB, it's easy to get a lot of waste there, especially when you want to split your files among multiple drives/controllers for performance reasons (that's where you'll get the biggest bang for the buck in terms of performance - remember I/O is almost always the culprit when it comes to database bottlenecks) 3. If you use Oracle, you will not be required to reload the database regularly just to keep a remote hot site. Oracle has standy-database functionality that allows you to take the archived redo logs (a copy of all the transactions issued to the database) from the primary, and simply ship those to the backup and apply them. That way, both databases are completely in sync while the data you're shipping is only as large as your transactions. And, considering this is a data warehouse, transactions are generally read-only, so you're talking virtually no traffic during normal use. That said, when you do your data loads (daily? weekly?), you're talking considerable traffic, but you can spread out the shipment of the logs to compensate for that. CigarBuff (Oracle/SAP DBA) P.S. $2K is way low for both the hardware and the database!
I see many posts that Linux can't efficiently handle 32 CPUs. They're missing the point when it comes to the GS320. This box has real partitioning such that Linux can run on 4 CPUs, and Tru64 can run on the rest. Carve it up even further - hell you could have a 8-node Beowulf cluster inside a single box.
And the hardware supports hot-swap RAM and CPU. Tru64 will support that in 5.1. Can't wait for that!!!
Metallica suing, Twisted Sister getting moral (re: John Rocker). What is this world coming to?
CigarBuff.
Actually, the ONLY versions of Tru64 are for the Alpha processors.
You quite obviously didn't get it.
This is the first _Earth-sized_ planet discovered. Not the first planet. Other Jupiter-sized planets have already been discovered, IIRC.
> Why buy an expensive Sun to be a development box...
Why? Because your production box is a Sun box. You don't necessarily (unless you're using the dev box for performance testing) need to buy the same hardware, but do buy the same platform! Just because you develop it on Linux (or any other platform, for that matter), doesn't mean it will transport to your Sun box and run well there. I've seen it happen _many_ times when people decided to go cheap and get NT for dev, qa, sandbox, etc. I've even seen it UNIX to UNIX.
Okay, so how is this going to be refuted by Microsoft? Easy. SAP is a 3-tier architecture. You've got your clients, your application server (SAP R/3) and your database server (Oracle, Informix, DB2, MS SQL Server, etc.).
You can have as many application servers as you want, but you can only have one database (which could be comprised of multiple servers in a load-balancing cluster such as Digital UNIX's TruCluster on Alphas).
This Siemens test had both the application server and the database server on the same box. Not realistic. Not scalable. Not the way real companies use SAP.
Microsoft already has NT benchmarks with over 1,000 concurrent users. As long as your database server can handle it, you just stick 10 application servers (or however many you wish) out there to take the front end load, and boom - your results go up. In fact, I've seen some UNIX results with 40 application servers all hitting the same database.
Also, no companies are going to use this benchmark, since the database Siemens decided on was SAP DB. Years ago, SAP realized that they were too dependant on Oracle (they're the largest reseller of Oracle database servers). So, they set out to write their own database. Then they realized it's not that easy. No one bought it. I had heard that development of SAP DB was killed. Evidently not - it was just ported to Linux. Still, nobody uses it in the real world.
We're off to a great start here, but still have a long way to go. Still, thanks Siemens!
No, BIND does not implement Dynamic DNS. Several commercial DNS servers, some based on BIND, offer DDNS, but vanilla BIND does not.
Dynamic DNS, if Microsoft is following the emerging RFC (yeah, right) give you the ability to automatically update your DNS tables if a machine's IP address changes. So, for example, if your machines are on DHCP, and their lease runs out and they get a new IP address, the DNS server will be updated to reflect this new address so that other clients will be able to resolve it's address.
Actually, FX!32 is not emulation - it's translation. You're running newly created executables.
What's the big deal? I've been doing this from my various UNIX boxes for years. And, I didn't need a half-assed (must be, since it's only for Windows) quasi-cracker utility to do it. I wonder how long it took them to copy the tcpdump source?
But, since you brought it up, I would think an organization like l0pht would have thought of a better name for their product. Hmm, let's see, a product that detects others who are promiscuous. How about Celibacy? Or Puritan? Guess they're going corporate, huh?
Besides being very poorly worded, your argument that "The definition of a Beowulf requires and "open source" OS" is simply incorrect. If you look back at why/when Beowulf was created (http://www.beowulf.org/intro.html), you'll find that it was from "their [the creators of Beowulf] idea of providing COTS (Commodity off the shelf) base systems to satisfy specific computational requirements."
Whether or not they used an open-source operating system is not the point. The goal was to provide an MPP system for as little cost as possible. If a collection of Tru64 UNIX workstations operating in a Beowulf cluster provides more computing performance at less cost than a similar system from a major MPP vendor, then it seems to meet the criteria for why Beowulf began. Sure, it might cost more than the same Alpha workstations running Linux, but it is also likely to perform better. Life's little tradeoffs are everywhere, aren't they?
Cheers,
David Hull
david.hull@england.com
This is not a hard drive - it's an external storage cabinet. BIG DIFFERENCE, FOLKS!
And it's not *that* much bigger than what EMC offers now, since you can get their cabinets with multi-terabytes as well.
What's the saying? A terabyte here, a terabyte there...
Clone away - I hear they taste great, AND they're less filling.
Would I have to wear a tinfoil hat if I were standing in the datastream?