If you ever see ZFS snapshots in action, you'd want ZFS on your desktop, too. It's trivial to create a snapshot. No need to pre-allocate space like on LVM.
Snapshots don't seem to impact performance, either.
Phoronix loves doing this. Last time, they compared a beta version of FreeBSD to a release of Ubuntu. The debugging definitely hurts performance.
I complained about this once, but a bunch of teenage kids started saying, "Ubuntu R0X0RS!"
I'm not sure where people got the idea that benchmarks are the one and only metric for comparing OSes. When Ubuntu doesn't win a benchmark in one of their OS shootouts, they'll have some explanation why that doesn't mean a lot.
I think they're still reeling from that time around 1999 or 2000 when NT4 trounced a redhat tuned linux in web server performance. It seems to me that OS X is the real desktop competition for Linux, and that OS X is winning "the hearts and minds" of the users. I'm sure Ubuntu can beat OS X (wasn't there a phoronix shootout about this?) in most benchmarks, but that doesn't matter if desktop users generally prefer OS X.
I suspect it would be useful to have more articles about what is needed to improve in Linux on the desktop... but to be fair, phoronix is just a benchmark, so that would be out of their scope.
and not something you'd want to store valuable data on. First off, it does not have redundant power. You could probably add redundant power for another $1,000 or so.
Second of all, if you did set up something like RAID 5 or RAID 6 (or RAIDZ/RAIDZ2), the rebuild time on a drive would probably be well over 12 hours with 1.5TB SATA drives.
I'm sure many people would be tempted to put all 45 drives in a large RAID 5 volume, which would be even scarier.
A more practical version would be to go with 41x 500GB SATA, 3x 60GB SSD, dual redundant power supplies, 32GB RAM, and Solaris or OpenSolaris.
You would probably break it down something like this:
2 disks - RAID 1 mirror for the system
2 30GB SSD drives for the slog (definitely helps improve performance)
3 hot spare
and then 6 sets of 6 drives in RAIDZ-2 in a single pool
This leaves out a couple of drives. You could put in a couple of 1.5TB (or even 2TB) in a Raid 1 mirror for some supplementary storage or just leave them out.
You're not going to have as much storage, but, your data will be safer. Plus, dropping down to 500GB from 1.5TB drives is a large difference in price (as much as $50-$60 per drive,) and the price differentials mean that the added expenses (such as power and the SSD drvies.)
Make it so you have to cancel a pop up window every five minutes, or it will reboot the box and run dban in automated mode. Of course, this means that you'll have to be in front of your PC and awake 24x7, but that's a small price to pay to know your data is safe if the laptop is stolen. It's more elegant than using something really impractical like encryption.
Fortunately, there's no real hierarchy for the front page. So, an imminent natural disaster is no more important than the latest gossip about the RIAA.
In regard to the ZFS on a USB drive issue, I think it is probably a bad idea to market ZFS as a regular desktop filesystem - at least for now. It seems like it's more of a NAS/SAN (with comstar) replacement and not something to use with your USB drives.
How many here would be comfortable power cycling EMC Clariions or NetApp boxes arbitrarily? They have redundant power for a reason.
Personally, I've been burned so many times by people power cycling servers with RAID cards I get very nervous when I have to start working on a system that was hard power cycled. Is one of the disks now corrupt?
At any rate, you can deal with the USB issue if you're willing to remove the pool with the USB drive, then re-import it when you re-attach it.
Again, I'd say this is bad marketing. I'm likely to use FAT32 on small flash devices, but not on server filesystems. I'm willing to live with the issues ZFS has with removing a device from a pool as long as I'm using it on a server. They do claim that this will be resolved at some point. With as many people as Sun has laid off, is anyone surprised this is taking a while? I think it's less an issue of "arrogant engineers" (if any Linux zealots are saying this, they're being pretty hypocritical) and more of an issue of not enough man power.
In addition to R-studio,
http://www.runtime.org/raid.htm works on RAID, especially in combination of getdataback.
I am rather fond of R-studio, though, as it supports UFS and UFS2. Most recovery tools only seem to suppott fat32, fat16, ntfs, and ext3.
Good point... in their documentation:
Live CD/DVD
to be added
I think they have hopes.
I have used the FreeBSD live CD, but it doesn't give you a gui... that's okay with me as I usually use it for recovery, anyway, and want it to boot as quickly as possible.
Desktop market... I suppose. I'm sure there are way more Apple desktops/laptops than Solaris/AIX/HP-UX desktops combined.
OS X server isn't really considered a significant player in the server os market. That might change if they started offering it for free (as Sun does with Solaris) - but I can't see that happening anytime soon.
Unfortunately (or fortunately,) many people do not work in the field they majored in. That's reality. Even if you do get to work in the field you studied for, it might not be as great as you thought it was going to be in college.
However, you might be lucky and avoid this - but that's most likely luck. Thinking that "I'm better than everyone else - I'll prove them all wrong and work in my dream job" is probably an example of narcissism (I'm not suggesting that you're thinking this way.)
I always advise people to not be too, too picky about finding a job; more than likely, even the "greatest" job will disappoint you over time. I sometimes think the best you should hope for is that the job is interesting. And in the current economy - "at least it's a job" is probably good enough. Anyway, don't be too surprised if your first few jobs are a little disappointing; that's reality.
The lack of rehearsal time is because a lot of the music is so simple it isn't needed. They do play through some sections multiple times - but often because the composer may not have actually heard the orchestration (it's sometimes farmed out to an arranger, as the composer won't have time to orchestrate the music) and he or she will want to re-hear it to change something. Rehearsal time is usually a bit inadequate, even for big orchestras. For simpler music - from the classical era, like Mozart and Haydn, the orchestra might have only one rhearsal. The same for concertos. This is often because there will be a more difficult piece on the same concert, and the conductor will want to maximize his time on it, at the expense of everything else on the concert.
The click track is torture for several reasons: because string players (without frets) need to hear themselves for tuning purposes (the headphones obstruct this), it's too rigid - it's more like using a metronome. Metronomes are useful while practicing alone.
The click track is important, however, as while programs like Autotune and Melodyne can adjust rhythms for solo parts, it doesn't really work with polyphonic (multiple pitches concurrently) music (and this is one reason why rock bands usually record individual parts (or at least the singer) separately)
The other reason the filmscore recording sessions are torture is that the music isn't very interesting. Many horror movies have extremely repetitious scores (repeating the same four or five notes many, many time, in slightly different patterns.) Recording sessions usually go on for many hours.
The redeeming thing is that recording sessions pay better (or, at least more hours) than other gigs. Weddings are usually torture for musicians, at least from those in the ceremony. Some of my friends have played over a hundred weddings, and playing Pachabel's canon for the 60th time isn't very inspiring.
It's not just bands now, either. Modern film scores use a click track. Some of my friends play film scores as freelancers (they are professional, classically trained musicians) - and they've all reported having to use a click track.
The "conductor" is mostly used to notify them which section to play... as most of the music doesn't merit actual rehearsal time. The conductor does get to watch the film during the session, however.
It's pure torture for the musicians... to make it worse, the "conductors" will sometimes say, "Wow! I wish you guys could have seen that scene!"
With all the attention to digital synchronization, some people seem to have forgotten to write and play decent music on occasion. Most film scores these days seem to rip-offs of other film scores or semi-quotes from classical works (John Williams, I'm looking at you.)
As great as the radio and recorded music has been, I sometimes feel that it has killed music.
Slashdot Mirror
If you ever see ZFS snapshots in action, you'd want ZFS on your desktop, too. It's trivial to create a snapshot. No need to pre-allocate space like on LVM.
Snapshots don't seem to impact performance, either.
Phoronix loves doing this. Last time, they compared a beta version of FreeBSD to a release of Ubuntu. The debugging definitely hurts performance.
I complained about this once, but a bunch of teenage kids started saying, "Ubuntu R0X0RS!"
I'm not sure where people got the idea that benchmarks are the one and only metric for comparing OSes. When Ubuntu doesn't win a benchmark in one of their OS shootouts, they'll have some explanation why that doesn't mean a lot.
I think they're still reeling from that time around 1999 or 2000 when NT4 trounced a redhat tuned linux in web server performance. It seems to me that OS X is the real desktop competition for Linux, and that OS X is winning "the hearts and minds" of the users. I'm sure Ubuntu can beat OS X (wasn't there a phoronix shootout about this?) in most benchmarks, but that doesn't matter if desktop users generally prefer OS X.
I suspect it would be useful to have more articles about what is needed to improve in Linux on the desktop... but to be fair, phoronix is just a benchmark, so that would be out of their scope.
and not something you'd want to store valuable data on. First off, it does not have redundant power. You could probably add redundant power for another $1,000 or so.
Second of all, if you did set up something like RAID 5 or RAID 6 (or RAIDZ/RAIDZ2), the rebuild time on a drive would probably be well over 12 hours with 1.5TB SATA drives.
I'm sure many people would be tempted to put all 45 drives in a large RAID 5 volume, which would be even scarier.
A more practical version would be to go with 41x 500GB SATA, 3x 60GB SSD, dual redundant power supplies, 32GB RAM, and Solaris or OpenSolaris.
You would probably break it down something like this: 2 disks - RAID 1 mirror for the system 2 30GB SSD drives for the slog (definitely helps improve performance) 3 hot spare and then 6 sets of 6 drives in RAIDZ-2 in a single pool This leaves out a couple of drives. You could put in a couple of 1.5TB (or even 2TB) in a Raid 1 mirror for some supplementary storage or just leave them out. You're not going to have as much storage, but, your data will be safer. Plus, dropping down to 500GB from 1.5TB drives is a large difference in price (as much as $50-$60 per drive,) and the price differentials mean that the added expenses (such as power and the SSD drvies.)
Make it so you have to cancel a pop up window every five minutes, or it will reboot the box and run dban in automated mode. Of course, this means that you'll have to be in front of your PC and awake 24x7, but that's a small price to pay to know your data is safe if the laptop is stolen. It's more elegant than using something really impractical like encryption.
Fortunately, there's no real hierarchy for the front page. So, an imminent natural disaster is no more important than the latest gossip about the RIAA.
It's pretty ironic that there would be an anarchy party...
the problem was that the lightning rods were all grounded to the pdus....
In regard to the ZFS on a USB drive issue, I think it is probably a bad idea to market ZFS as a regular desktop filesystem - at least for now. It seems like it's more of a NAS/SAN (with comstar) replacement and not something to use with your USB drives.
How many here would be comfortable power cycling EMC Clariions or NetApp boxes arbitrarily? They have redundant power for a reason.
Personally, I've been burned so many times by people power cycling servers with RAID cards I get very nervous when I have to start working on a system that was hard power cycled. Is one of the disks now corrupt?
At any rate, you can deal with the USB issue if you're willing to remove the pool with the USB drive, then re-import it when you re-attach it.
Again, I'd say this is bad marketing. I'm likely to use FAT32 on small flash devices, but not on server filesystems. I'm willing to live with the issues ZFS has with removing a device from a pool as long as I'm using it on a server. They do claim that this will be resolved at some point. With as many people as Sun has laid off, is anyone surprised this is taking a while? I think it's less an issue of "arrogant engineers" (if any Linux zealots are saying this, they're being pretty hypocritical) and more of an issue of not enough man power.
In addition to R-studio, http://www.runtime.org/raid.htm works on RAID, especially in combination of getdataback.
I am rather fond of R-studio, though, as it supports UFS and UFS2. Most recovery tools only seem to suppott fat32, fat16, ntfs, and ext3.
How do I become a Microsoft shill? I'd like to make $10 a post. Is it true I can make $11 a post as an Apple shill?
as for the old RLL or MFM controllers, maybe someone will release a USB to RLL adapter.
maybe the cache could...
That, and the super glue on the SATA cable connector isn't helping much - especially when trying to remove the cable.
Point taken, but it's kind of hard to disguise planets exploding, or giant spaceships exploding as we have no historical footage of them.
It's a bit of a stretch to compare Gump to Trek.
Good point... in their documentation: Live CD/DVD to be added I think they have hopes. I have used the FreeBSD live CD, but it doesn't give you a gui... that's okay with me as I usually use it for recovery, anyway, and want it to boot as quickly as possible.
http://www.pcbsd.org/ 7.1 is based off FreeBSD 7.1. I'm sure 7.2 of PCBSD will come out shortly.
but not surprised that everyone here is blasting it. Linux fanboys have grown to embrace the MS way, I guess.
If I can't click on my little gnome wizard and have it turn the box into a bloated desktop with a single click, I'm not happy!
Pretty ironic.
the same time, how much would it cost to run three at the same time?
One would think that for geeks, getting a slashdot posting as a pseudo-eulogy would not be a bad thing.
Desktop market... I suppose. I'm sure there are way more Apple desktops/laptops than Solaris/AIX/HP-UX desktops combined.
OS X server isn't really considered a significant player in the server os market. That might change if they started offering it for free (as Sun does with Solaris) - but I can't see that happening anytime soon.
I'm very much in agreement with that. It's unfortunate that so many jobs are all consuming and prohibit (to a large degree) other interests/hobbies.
Oh well... maybe after the recession is over....
Unfortunately (or fortunately,) many people do not work in the field they majored in. That's reality. Even if you do get to work in the field you studied for, it might not be as great as you thought it was going to be in college.
However, you might be lucky and avoid this - but that's most likely luck. Thinking that "I'm better than everyone else - I'll prove them all wrong and work in my dream job" is probably an example of narcissism (I'm not suggesting that you're thinking this way.)
I always advise people to not be too, too picky about finding a job; more than likely, even the "greatest" job will disappoint you over time. I sometimes think the best you should hope for is that the job is interesting. And in the current economy - "at least it's a job" is probably good enough. Anyway, don't be too surprised if your first few jobs are a little disappointing; that's reality.
will go way up due to demand.
The click track is torture for several reasons: because string players (without frets) need to hear themselves for tuning purposes (the headphones obstruct this), it's too rigid - it's more like using a metronome. Metronomes are useful while practicing alone.
The click track is important, however, as while programs like Autotune and Melodyne can adjust rhythms for solo parts, it doesn't really work with polyphonic (multiple pitches concurrently) music (and this is one reason why rock bands usually record individual parts (or at least the singer) separately)
The other reason the filmscore recording sessions are torture is that the music isn't very interesting. Many horror movies have extremely repetitious scores (repeating the same four or five notes many, many time, in slightly different patterns.) Recording sessions usually go on for many hours.
The redeeming thing is that recording sessions pay better (or, at least more hours) than other gigs. Weddings are usually torture for musicians, at least from those in the ceremony. Some of my friends have played over a hundred weddings, and playing Pachabel's canon for the 60th time isn't very inspiring.
It's not just bands now, either. Modern film scores use a click track. Some of my friends play film scores as freelancers (they are professional, classically trained musicians) - and they've all reported having to use a click track.
The "conductor" is mostly used to notify them which section to play... as most of the music doesn't merit actual rehearsal time. The conductor does get to watch the film during the session, however.
It's pure torture for the musicians... to make it worse, the "conductors" will sometimes say, "Wow! I wish you guys could have seen that scene!"
With all the attention to digital synchronization, some people seem to have forgotten to write and play decent music on occasion. Most film scores these days seem to rip-offs of other film scores or semi-quotes from classical works (John Williams, I'm looking at you.) As great as the radio and recorded music has been, I sometimes feel that it has killed music.