For a further look into the phylosophical ramification of Quantum Mechanics, check out: http://www.msubillings.edu/modlang/bplank/quantu mnietzsche.htm
64 bytes from 216.200.57.12: icmp_seq=0 ttl=248 time=316.5 ms 64 bytes from 216.200.57.12: icmp_seq=1 ttl=248 time=365.4 ms 64 bytes from 216.200.57.12: icmp_seq=2 ttl=248 time=94.1 ms 64 bytes from 216.200.57.12: icmp_seq=3 ttl=248 time=335.0 ms
But the response time for the page is way slow. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/athlon600pre view/page3.asp Is.asp the problem?
Technical issues aside, isnt' this limiting the size of ones' "soap box?" Part of the promise of the Internet is that now everyone owns the modern equivalent printing press, but what good does it do if no one can listen to what you say? It's fine if you want to download all the pablum that the major players have to say but they won't let us talk with "no server" policies. On the technical side, (working for an ISP) we have tons up upstream bandwidth, it's the downloaders that cause us to buy additional T1's. Perhaps I don't understand their network (or don't understand why they would design it that way), but wouldn't every 100th user running a server just ballance the load? (I'm talking about their Internet gateway, not the shared media local loop)
1. Reliability You need to buy another controler and get disks as similar as possible. Use Raid 5 or 1 (mirroring).
2. Performance Buy another controler (as MB controlers aren't independent (as mentioned)) and run RAID 0 _and_back_it_up_to_tape_ for fastest reads/writes or RAID 1 for faster reads. Again, get similar disks as you will be limited by the weakest link in the chain
3. Just want to play/can say you have RAID If you can't justify buying a controler/disks (read: no real reason to run RAID), do Linear Append on two disks on your "seperate" IDE cables. Because of the way the ext2 FS statistically distributes data across the disks you should get slightly better performance if both disks are reasonable fast (don't do this with a old slow dog and a fast new disk).
The real answers for "the best RAID setup" depend on exactly what you want to do with it. eg., most web servers want fast reads an don't care too much about writes vs. production database servers want fast reads and writes but care most about data integrity (RAID 5 or 0+1).
or in mantra form: If you want performace stripe it; if you want reliability mirror it; if you neeed space append it.
Slashdot Mirror
Tertiary & quaternary controlers are what they are sometimes called. That may help you in your searches.
/usr/src/linux-2.2.5/Documentation/ide.txt
There's some more info in:
For a further look into the phylosophical ramification of Quantum Mechanics, check out:u mnietzsche.htm
http://www.msubillings.edu/modlang/bplank/quant
I was having trouble getting to Well Fargo's "secure" site because my Netscape 4.61 wasn't greater that 3.x (sic) so I did a:
/etc/junkbuster/conf
user-agent Mozilla/3.0N AVE-Front/2.0
in
I'd bet something like that would fix it.
They'll just move to LinuxAlpha or LinuxPPC. Why should the ubergeek be constrained to 32bit Intel?
The ping times are good:
e view/page3.asp .asp the problem?
64 bytes from 216.200.57.12: icmp_seq=0 ttl=248 time=316.5 ms
64 bytes from 216.200.57.12: icmp_seq=1 ttl=248 time=365.4 ms
64 bytes from 216.200.57.12: icmp_seq=2 ttl=248 time=94.1 ms
64 bytes from 216.200.57.12: icmp_seq=3 ttl=248 time=335.0 ms
But the response time for the page is way slow.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/athlon600pr
Is
Technical issues aside, isnt' this limiting the size of ones' "soap box?" Part of the promise of the Internet is that now everyone owns the modern equivalent printing press, but what good does it do if no one can listen to what you say? It's fine if you want to download all the pablum that the major players have to say but they won't let us talk with "no server" policies.
On the technical side, (working for an ISP) we have tons up upstream bandwidth, it's the downloaders that cause us to buy additional T1's. Perhaps I don't understand their network (or don't understand why they would design it that way), but wouldn't every 100th user running a server just ballance the load? (I'm talking about their Internet gateway, not the shared media local loop)
There are three reasone to use RAID:
1. Reliability
You need to buy another controler and get disks as similar as possible. Use Raid 5 or 1 (mirroring).
2. Performance
Buy another controler (as MB controlers aren't independent (as mentioned)) and run RAID 0 _and_back_it_up_to_tape_ for fastest reads/writes or RAID 1 for faster reads.
Again, get similar disks as you will be limited by the weakest link in the chain
3. Just want to play/can say you have RAID
If you can't justify buying a controler/disks (read: no real reason to run RAID), do Linear Append on two disks on your "seperate" IDE cables.
Because of the way the ext2 FS statistically distributes data across the disks you should get slightly better performance if both disks are reasonable fast (don't do this with a old slow dog and a fast new disk).
The real answers for "the best RAID setup" depend on exactly what you want to do with it. eg., most web servers want fast reads an don't care too much about writes vs. production database servers want fast reads and writes but care most about data integrity (RAID 5 or 0+1).
or in mantra form:
If you want performace stripe it; if you want reliability mirror it; if you neeed space append it.