I agree. It works out to about 16% interest, which is impossible to justify. You are better off putting it on a credit card! (That is meant to convey how BAD it is, not suggesting people put things that they can't afford on a credit card...)
Ah, now I see your point. Crashplan has an option where you can supply the encryption key. That means the government would have to come to you (or compromise the Crashplan app on your computer) in order to snoop your stuff.
Hardware: - Old HP Core 2 Duo workstation from eBay with 4GB ECC RAM - Extra SATA controller, both for performance and to give me a 5th plug for when I'm replacing drives. - A 5-drive caddy that replaces the old drive cage. - 2x 2GB drives and 2x 3GB drives Software: - FreeBSD 8.x Configuration: - Boot from USB2 Thumb Drive (which I periodically clone to a second, identical thumb drive for instant recovery) - Drives are mirrored in pairs, for a total capacity of 5GB
I put this together a couple of years ago. If I did it today, I might make some different choices.
For instance, the HP Microserver sells new for about what I paid for the workstation used. It supports ECC RAM and apparently runs FreeBSD well. I would probably choose that, as it would be a cleaner build. This was not available when I put my machine together.
I might consider the Linux version of ZFS, but probably not, since keeping the kernel up to date would be a pain. I would also consider FreeNAS. I tried it back when I decided to use FreeBSD instead, and it was not ready for prime time. It seems to have improved a whole lot, and makes setup and maintenance easier. Not that FreeBSD is hard to use, but it is different from Linux and so you need to learn the new set of tools (like the ports system). I would go with the 9.x branch if I built today - 8.x was the stable branch when I did my build, and FreeBSD is really good about supporting the older branch.
I started with a motley collection of dissimilar drives, which is why I went with pairs. I would be able to get more usable space from the drives by running raidz instead of mirrored pairs - but only if you upgrade drives all at once. My setup lets me replace them in pairs. If I was buying everything brand new, I would probably choose raidz with 2 redundant drives... but I'm on a budget!
Finally, if you use WD Green drives, they work fine but make sure you disable the stupid head parking feature! One of mine beat itself to an early death by parking its heads every 10 seconds for about a year:) There used to be 4096 sector size issues with some drives, but I think they have been sorted out.
Thanks for the clarification, my text is misleading. It will spread the blocks out, but randomly - there is no guarantee that the copies will end up on separate disks (unless you are using mirrored vdevs).
If you are hell bent on this, just partition the drive into however many parts you feel is sufficient and run raidz across them. With 5 partitions and a single redundant partition, you would only use up 1/5 of your drive on parity. It's a hack, but I'm not aware of any production-worthy filesystem that can do what you want.
Not sure what you mean. You certainly can set up a mirrored pair (or triplet or quadruplet), but you can also set up what's referred to as raidz, where it stripes the redundancy across multiple disks. You can configure how much redundancy... 1, 2, or more disks if you like. You can also tell ZFS to keep multiple copies of blocks, and it will spread those copies out among the disks. You can set that policy per sub-volume (file system in zfs-speak), so that if you decide that some of your data deserves more redundancy, you can set up a folder that will keep 2 copies of everything, but leave all the other folders at 1 copy. It's super geeky. I've had it detect (and correct) corruption in a failing disk, detect corruption because of a flaky disk controller that would otherwise pretend to work fine, and detect corruption when a SATA cable came loose. Combined with the ECC RAM in the server, I feel more comfortable about the integrity of my data than I ever have. I've lost family photos before to random drive corruption, so I'm sensitive to this stuff:)
I love ZFS, if one can love a file system. Even for home use. It requires a little bit nicer hardware than a typical NAS, but the data integrity is worth it. I'm old enough to have been burned by random disk corruption, flaky disk controllers, and bad cables.
You get access to the configuration which can then relay any incoming data to some outside target.
IANASA (systems administrator)... but why would this matter? Presumably the host OS would restrict the ports this thing can use. A compromised app on Linux with access to the world on some port could relay any incoming data to an outside target as well... right?
The Cube and PT Cruiser are purposely ugly. I think they were actually trying with the Aztec. It's accidental ugly. Even the Buick version couldn't hide how ugly the car was.
Thing is, most capital these days is in pension and retirement funds. Public employees for the win?:)
Wealth distribution is definitely a problem, if only because democracy depends on a perception of fairness - and that does not seem to be very strong right now. That said, I think it's a bit of a separate issue. "Capital" and "Labor" costs aren't really so separate... when you spend capital, you are buying equipment and facilities where much of the cost is labor. Your expensive capital equipment use raw materials where much of the cost is labor. At the end of the day, the terms are just for accountants.
This is the same reason they oppose healthcare reform. It is clear that anyone paying for healthcare is paying for the "free" care in the ER and those who skip out on the bill. Yet, they can't see that because it is one step removed from them.
Heh, I give everyone that lecture when they call Obama a socialist. I tell them that they just called Reagan a socialist, since he's the one who mandated compulsory ER care. The battle over whether or not we have socialized health care was over in the '80s, it is only a debate as how it should be funded at this point.
It turns out not everybody would do that. For whatever reason, not everyone wants to do that.
But they might, if there was no other way to gain meaningful employment. And just like today, the government would be under pressure to help finance it. And because productivity increased, we as a society could afford it.
Current evidence suggests this is not true. Profits in general are going up but prices in general are not coming down.
I would argue that is a temporary blip, driven by: record low interest rates that reduce the cost of servicing debt, reluctance by corporations to reinvest money, and a reluctance to hire. We've already seen profit growth stall, and the next step is Wall Street insisting that companies resume revenue growth.
I would argue that the problem of urban poverty affects the suburbanites, both by sucking away tax money and by increasing even suburban crime. Nearly every time they catch a burglar in my township, he comes from a bad section of neighboring Philly. We spend a lot on police because of Philadelphia poverty. We have a lot of Philly kids fraudulently attending our schools. We get the occasional dumped body near one of our creekside parks because some idiot thug thinks a wooded roadside 2 miles from his home is "the wilderness". I'd happily pay an increased tax to make those problems go away.
None of these things are easy. Look how resistant people are to funding urban and suburban schools at the same level. Such a simple problem to recognize and solve, and yet here we are.
"Will be able to do" does not mean "will do". It doesn't make sense to develop a robot to do one-off jobs. You need a certain amount of volume to make a task worth automating.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. It works out to about 16% interest, which is impossible to justify. You are better off putting it on a credit card! (That is meant to convey how BAD it is, not suggesting people put things that they can't afford on a credit card...)
Ah, now I see your point. Crashplan has an option where you can supply the encryption key. That means the government would have to come to you (or compromise the Crashplan app on your computer) in order to snoop your stuff.
Hardware:
- Old HP Core 2 Duo workstation from eBay with 4GB ECC RAM
- Extra SATA controller, both for performance and to give me a 5th plug for when I'm replacing drives.
- A 5-drive caddy that replaces the old drive cage.
- 2x 2GB drives and 2x 3GB drives
Software:
- FreeBSD 8.x
Configuration:
- Boot from USB2 Thumb Drive (which I periodically clone to a second, identical thumb drive for instant recovery)
- Drives are mirrored in pairs, for a total capacity of 5GB
I put this together a couple of years ago. If I did it today, I might make some different choices.
For instance, the HP Microserver sells new for about what I paid for the workstation used. It supports ECC RAM and apparently runs FreeBSD well. I would probably choose that, as it would be a cleaner build. This was not available when I put my machine together.
I might consider the Linux version of ZFS, but probably not, since keeping the kernel up to date would be a pain. I would also consider FreeNAS. I tried it back when I decided to use FreeBSD instead, and it was not ready for prime time. It seems to have improved a whole lot, and makes setup and maintenance easier. Not that FreeBSD is hard to use, but it is different from Linux and so you need to learn the new set of tools (like the ports system). I would go with the 9.x branch if I built today - 8.x was the stable branch when I did my build, and FreeBSD is really good about supporting the older branch.
I started with a motley collection of dissimilar drives, which is why I went with pairs. I would be able to get more usable space from the drives by running raidz instead of mirrored pairs - but only if you upgrade drives all at once. My setup lets me replace them in pairs. If I was buying everything brand new, I would probably choose raidz with 2 redundant drives... but I'm on a budget!
Finally, if you use WD Green drives, they work fine but make sure you disable the stupid head parking feature! One of mine beat itself to an early death by parking its heads every 10 seconds for about a year :) There used to be 4096 sector size issues with some drives, but I think they have been sorted out.
Actually the T-Mobile financing seems pretty reasonable. I think the interest charges work out to about $80 for the new iPhone.
Thanks for the clarification, my text is misleading. It will spread the blocks out, but randomly - there is no guarantee that the copies will end up on separate disks (unless you are using mirrored vdevs).
If you are hell bent on this, just partition the drive into however many parts you feel is sufficient and run raidz across them. With 5 partitions and a single redundant partition, you would only use up 1/5 of your drive on parity. It's a hack, but I'm not aware of any production-worthy filesystem that can do what you want.
Or just run ECC memory! :)
Not sure what you mean. You certainly can set up a mirrored pair (or triplet or quadruplet), but you can also set up what's referred to as raidz, where it stripes the redundancy across multiple disks. You can configure how much redundancy... 1, 2, or more disks if you like. You can also tell ZFS to keep multiple copies of blocks, and it will spread those copies out among the disks. You can set that policy per sub-volume (file system in zfs-speak), so that if you decide that some of your data deserves more redundancy, you can set up a folder that will keep 2 copies of everything, but leave all the other folders at 1 copy. It's super geeky. I've had it detect (and correct) corruption in a failing disk, detect corruption because of a flaky disk controller that would otherwise pretend to work fine, and detect corruption when a SATA cable came loose. Combined with the ECC RAM in the server, I feel more comfortable about the integrity of my data than I ever have. I've lost family photos before to random drive corruption, so I'm sensitive to this stuff :)
FreeBSD. I'm sure that makes me more retarded. Or retardeder in your people's language.
I love ZFS, if one can love a file system. Even for home use. It requires a little bit nicer hardware than a typical NAS, but the data integrity is worth it. I'm old enough to have been burned by random disk corruption, flaky disk controllers, and bad cables.
It was also single-user, was it not?
You get access to the configuration which can then relay any incoming data to some outside target.
IANASA (systems administrator)... but why would this matter? Presumably the host OS would restrict the ports this thing can use. A compromised app on Linux with access to the world on some port could relay any incoming data to an outside target as well... right?
I'll go one further and say that both unions and corporations have gone too far. Neither should be able to lobby government.
Have a Chinese Twinkie.
Also they are almost always driven by people who shouldn't be driving.
A more likely explanation is an extremely common car combined with selection bias.
The Cube and PT Cruiser are purposely ugly. I think they were actually trying with the Aztec. It's accidental ugly. Even the Buick version couldn't hide how ugly the car was.
That might be on the low side, but developed countries consistently have a lower-than-replacement.
Yes, but that's been going down.
Thing is, most capital these days is in pension and retirement funds. Public employees for the win? :)
Wealth distribution is definitely a problem, if only because democracy depends on a perception of fairness - and that does not seem to be very strong right now. That said, I think it's a bit of a separate issue. "Capital" and "Labor" costs aren't really so separate... when you spend capital, you are buying equipment and facilities where much of the cost is labor. Your expensive capital equipment use raw materials where much of the cost is labor. At the end of the day, the terms are just for accountants.
This is the same reason they oppose healthcare reform. It is clear that anyone paying for healthcare is paying for the "free" care in the ER and those who skip out on the bill. Yet, they can't see that because it is one step removed from them.
Heh, I give everyone that lecture when they call Obama a socialist. I tell them that they just called Reagan a socialist, since he's the one who mandated compulsory ER care. The battle over whether or not we have socialized health care was over in the '80s, it is only a debate as how it should be funded at this point.
It turns out not everybody would do that. For whatever reason, not everyone wants to do that.
But they might, if there was no other way to gain meaningful employment. And just like today, the government would be under pressure to help finance it. And because productivity increased, we as a society could afford it.
Current evidence suggests this is not true. Profits in general are going up but prices in general are not coming down.
I would argue that is a temporary blip, driven by: record low interest rates that reduce the cost of servicing debt, reluctance by corporations to reinvest money, and a reluctance to hire. We've already seen profit growth stall, and the next step is Wall Street insisting that companies resume revenue growth.
I would argue that the problem of urban poverty affects the suburbanites, both by sucking away tax money and by increasing even suburban crime. Nearly every time they catch a burglar in my township, he comes from a bad section of neighboring Philly. We spend a lot on police because of Philadelphia poverty. We have a lot of Philly kids fraudulently attending our schools. We get the occasional dumped body near one of our creekside parks because some idiot thug thinks a wooded roadside 2 miles from his home is "the wilderness". I'd happily pay an increased tax to make those problems go away.
None of these things are easy. Look how resistant people are to funding urban and suburban schools at the same level. Such a simple problem to recognize and solve, and yet here we are.
"Will be able to do" does not mean "will do". It doesn't make sense to develop a robot to do one-off jobs. You need a certain amount of volume to make a task worth automating.