Not to mention that PowerPC chips "load" non-linearly compared to other architectures -- that is, they become far less efficient at, say the top 8-10% of CPU usage time, both electrically and logically. If true, this could definitely shorten their lifespan if it causes excessive heat stress.
Unfortunately, I don't have anything to back that up. Occasionally Google is not so friendly.
This is OT, and I'm nitpicking, but what do you mean by "at least RAID 1" (emphasis mine)? That's basically as redundant as you can get; IIRC there is no other RAID scheme that has as much redundancy (actually, that takes as much extra hard disk to make it work). RAID 1 schemes (1, 0+1, 10) are also capable of running without a performance hit when one drive fails, unlike RAID 3/4/5 systems, some implementations of which cannot run at all until rebuilt.
Just wondering what you consider the "best" redundant configuration.
Actually, Microsoft never did support Linux. On anything. At least I hope not . . . If they did, I have a feeling it would be the Slashdot story of the decade at least.
I haven't checked into it much, but I remembered the DIBS (Distributed Internet Backup System -- Slashdot article here). I would imagine that it could be modifed (maybe not trivially) to support real-time disk operations, since it is open-source. However, although I don't know much about Python, I have a feeling this may suffer in performance from being written in a (semi-)interpreted language.
Python lovers want to flame me for incriminating their programming language?
how is this any functionally different than running said applications in . . . plex86?
Plex86 is a very lightweight VM designed for running Linux only as a guest OS; this won't help you with Windows programs obviously (unless you use it just to isolate CW or Wine -- you still need one though). Plus you need a copy of Windows to run inside the other VMs anyway -- there's a significant performance loss too.
Sorry, I had to draw a picture to help me think.:-D You are right of course. I forgot again that spinning the disc backward AND reading it inside out is "the same" as going "forward" both ways and inverting data order.
You're right, naturally. My puny brain is unfortunately incapable of adding two and two. I was thinking of only one issue at a time.
however --
I have an unfounded inkling that it would be almost as hard to get a CD laser to track backwards as it would be to get the CD to spin backwards (provided, again, that this is true). At least from what piddling things I know about CDs.
Yes; the point appears to be to load Linux/other OS over the network. There is some discussion on Planet Gamecube about Linux on Gamecube.
You don't need a full CD's worth anyway, nor could you do much with it anyway, except run it straight off the CD, or buy a really big SD card (they use SD cards? I really didn't double check this), which would make the point of doing it at all rather obscure.
Oh wait this is Linux. I want Linux in my ceiling fan and vaccum cleaner...because!!! Gentoo, while you're at it.
This is not the issue. The CD has a spiral track, which would have an opposite orientation to the normal one (IF the CD spins "wrong way round"); the laser would continuously be crossing the spiral track. Unless, of course, you start at the outside and go inward, as is mentioned in another post.
Note that I don't know anything about the Gamecube or its format; just noting that reversing the bits isn't going to help, assuming it has an ISO fs in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that PowerPC chips "load" non-linearly compared to other architectures -- that is, they become far less efficient at, say the top 8-10% of CPU usage time, both electrically and logically. If true, this could definitely shorten their lifespan if it causes excessive heat stress.
Unfortunately, I don't have anything to back that up. Occasionally Google is not so friendly.
I've forgotten the technical names for those "reproductive" methods
i on
I think vegetative reproduction fits here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetative_reproduct
You're right. That's the difference between RAID 0+1 and RAID 10, according to
http://www.acnc.com/04_01_10.html
http://www.acnc.com/04_01_0p1.html
"RAID 0+1 has the same fault tolerance as RAID level 5" and "RAID 10 has the same fault tolerance as RAID level 1," demonstrating your point.
This is OT, and I'm nitpicking, but what do you mean by "at least RAID 1" (emphasis mine)? That's basically as redundant as you can get; IIRC there is no other RAID scheme that has as much redundancy (actually, that takes as much extra hard disk to make it work). RAID 1 schemes (1, 0+1, 10) are also capable of running without a performance hit when one drive fails, unlike RAID 3/4/5 systems, some implementations of which cannot run at all until rebuilt.
Just wondering what you consider the "best" redundant configuration.
MS has dropped SUPPORT for Linux
Actually, Microsoft never did support Linux. On anything. At least I hope not . . . If they did, I have a feeling it would be the Slashdot story of the decade at least.
Imagine.
Forget it. You'll blow up your brain trying.
You're joking, but that's exactly the purpose of Plex86.
Oh and I use VMware and I am not sure what everybody's complaining about -- it's been running beautifully for me, albeit slow on a Duron 700 . . .
I haven't checked into it much, but I remembered the DIBS (Distributed Internet Backup System -- Slashdot article here). I would imagine that it could be modifed (maybe not trivially) to support real-time disk operations, since it is open-source. However, although I don't know much about Python, I have a feeling this may suffer in performance from being written in a (semi-)interpreted language. Python lovers want to flame me for incriminating their programming language?
how is this any functionally different than running said applications in . . . plex86?
Plex86 is a very lightweight VM designed for running Linux only as a guest OS; this won't help you with Windows programs obviously (unless you use it just to isolate CW or Wine -- you still need one though). Plus you need a copy of Windows to run inside the other VMs anyway -- there's a significant performance loss too.
Sorry, I had to draw a picture to help me think. :-D You are right of course. I forgot again that spinning the disc backward AND reading it inside out is "the same" as going "forward" both ways and inverting data order.
See ya. I'm going out to buy a brain.
Sorry, I didn't RTFA. My mind triggers on the "Linux on " and starts spewing out silly nonsense.
You're right, naturally. My puny brain is unfortunately incapable of adding two and two. I was thinking of only one issue at a time.
however --
I have an unfounded inkling that it would be almost as hard to get a CD laser to track backwards as it would be to get the CD to spin backwards (provided, again, that this is true). At least from what piddling things I know about CDs.
that's even less than two cents woth
Yes; the point appears to be to load Linux/other OS over the network. There is some discussion on Planet Gamecube about Linux on Gamecube.
You don't need a full CD's worth anyway, nor could you do much with it anyway, except run it straight off the CD, or buy a really big SD card (they use SD cards? I really didn't double check this), which would make the point of doing it at all rather obscure.
Oh wait this is Linux. I want Linux in my ceiling fan and vaccum cleaner...because!!! Gentoo, while you're at it.
This is not the issue. The CD has a spiral track, which would have an opposite orientation to the normal one (IF the CD spins "wrong way round"); the laser would continuously be crossing the spiral track. Unless, of course, you start at the outside and go inward, as is mentioned in another post.
Note that I don't know anything about the Gamecube or its format; just noting that reversing the bits isn't going to help, assuming it has an ISO fs in the first place.
See the previous similar question. The answer by seanadams.com is very helpful.
And it's not a stupid question...very reasonable, if you assume it can be done.
Though for the sentence to be entirely correct, the comma after the quote 'biggest mysql cluster' should be placed within the single quotes, IIRC...
:-)
No one is perfect.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.