A thinking man. Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, you have to respect that Sanders is not in the corporatists' pocket, and cares about the people. I would be viewed as holding to a number of relatively conservative and libertarian views, but this man has my respect.
Does Apple's News app in china display a message "the shitty masters you put up with won't let you see real news, BITCHES"? I thought not. Apple is one among many actively propping up that hide bound gerontocracy.
"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." -Lenin. They will also gleefully cooperate with evil bastards.
Patents can actually serve their purpose. Most of the pharmaceutical industry is built around patents - companies spend vast amounts of money on research to get them. They are evil greedy mega-corps, of course, but that doesn't matter: Their drugs still keep people alive regardless of the motivation for their creation.
But at what cost? To the unfortunate individual, and to society?
I won't buy that, forgive me, pablum. The capitalist system with patents does indeed get the development money spent - but then it allows somebody to make a selfish profit off people's misfortunes. The most profitable opportunities are pursued, not the most crying needs. It's only an accident if they coincide. An authority could be set up to do the research with only the reward of fair and normal salary, not a reward of striking it rich. Money would not be funneled to the 1%.
It is only a good thing. It cannot be a bad thing. You cannot convict anyone by jury nullification; only free someone. Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man hang.
Sorry, my representative is an obvious utter establishment tool. I won't communicate with him in any way. Mine is a one party state, but that is just a nail in the coffin. The corrupt establishment is the problem, not the political process.
I can assure you that the vast majority of congresspeople will retain their seats in the next election. I think the statistics are in the 90% range. Years of gerrymandering have ensured this.
It is sad that you think the problem is as simple and straightforward as gerrymandering.
Sorry, but no, it wasn't. Without blatantly literal sarcasm tags inserted, it doesn't work on the printed page. You can't criticize a reader for not picking up that what you are writing is the opposite of what you believe.
I don't believe you understand cynicism and sarcasm.
No offense, but maybe if you get pounded on the head enough you will understand that cynicism and sarcasm is very, very hard to pull off effectively in person with tonal and visual cues, and all but impossible on the printed page. My most friendly advice is to avoid trying it. It doesn't work.
Of course, we theoretically have the option to complain to our elected representatives or vote them out of office, something not possible in the former Soviet Bloc.
There were regular elections, supported by a Constitutional framework, in the USSR. The Supreme Soviet was elected by popular vote, and in turn elected the Presidium and appointed the Council of Ministers and the Chairman (Khrushchev, etc). OK, there was no direct popular election for the Chairman, but the same thing is true of Parliamentary systems like the UK.
A weakness was that there was shadow control by the Communist party (Politburo) behind the scenes. Again, was that a ZOMG unique weakness? No. In the US, there is shadow control by the two big parties behind the scenes. They used to pick the nominees in smoke filled rooms in a convention. Then later we had primaries. Big deal. The establishment still controls who runs in those primaries. Does ANYONE think that ANY of those contesting in recent history for President are suitable for the job? Maybe some of the fringe players are, but they mysteriously get no popular support. The media makes fun of them and jokes about how they are not "real" contenders. Foul stories circulate about their past; their private lives.
"Complain to our elected representatives"? President Obama's big show of a system to petition the Executive to change things is completely hollow. Similarly, Congressmen pay no attention to constituents between the election cycles, and do no more than pull wool over the voters' eyes. The Soviet system similarly had "show" responsiveness, and it was similarly hollow.
The Communist party was a convenient focus of the shadow establishment in the USSR. We have a similar shadow establishment, but cannot even identify it or point to it. Which is the more clever yolk; the less susceptible to any kind of correction whatsoever?
I fear that it is rather clear that what they stand for is a lot of bullshit that has nothing at all to do with what your, and my, values and priorities are.
Me too. Of course, nobody has GAF'ED about what I think since my fight to keep grub from displacing Lilo hit the skids, Well, I knew this day would come. It seems Linux is about to succumb to a plethora of competing fragmented distro's in a vain attempt to thwart the windows 10 initiative. If I didn't know better, I'd blame Steve Jobs, but I do know better. The freaks at debian have only themselves to blame. Debian isn't even cool anymore. It's just kind of neckbeardy and hard to use. If you still use debian, it would be a good time to stop.
This is all getting pretty OT, but it is interesting.
I remember well when grub came on the scene. At first it blew my mind how complex they were making the apparently-simple job of booting. But when you really looked into it, it turned out that the process wasn't so simple at all, and there was a real and valid reason for everything that was done. It added as much complexity as needed to be added, and not really any more than that. (And then just when we started getting used to grub, along came grub2 and changed everything again... yet it addressed real needs and the changes made sense if you spent enough time looking at the issues).
Contrast that to systemd. Yes, sysvinit had certain shortcomings, and yes, systemd did address these. But it also added more complexity than it needed to. It took on stuff that should have been completely separate issues - journald and subsumation of udev and some other tentacles, I'm looking at you. IMHO, if systemd had been architected as a general purpose bus into which the pieces could have been OPTIONALLY plugged without tight coupling, it would have addressed every one of the objections without any heartache or controversy. As it is, it is too much of a totalitarian bureaucracy, and needlessly so.
Anyway, throwing LSB to the curb is bullshit. They saved a grand total of maybe ten programmer-minutes by doing it. It should be no sur[rise that we read ulterior motives into it.
brambus - thank you for improving my knowledge of the details of this wonderful product - and thank you as a developer! There is a lot of bad info out there. At least I knew that the integrity was very cleverly guaranteed, even if I unwittingly took liberties with the details.
Raid 5 spreads the parity across the array. (Raid 5 is striping with parity). You're thinking of raid 4.
Thank you. Error accepted. I got bitten by some bad material on the web. What ZFS does do differently is this: every (variable size) logical block written is its own stripe. It does not have a fixed stripe size like RAID5, which more than one block may share. This eliminates some read-modifiy-writes which RAID5 has to do (with the attendant reduction in throughput), as well as being instrumental in closing the write hole. It can do this because the redundancy is implemented at the same level as the filesystem. I.e., it is aware of the data structure, which traditional RAID5 is not.
rahvin112 - You are unquestionably mistaken about the write hole. The design and implementation of ZFS specifically banishes it. Other respondents have made this clear with some authority, and I will only add this reference:
"RAID-Z is a data/parity scheme like RAID-5, but it uses dynamic stripe width. Every block is its own RAID-Z stripe, regardless of blocksize. This means that every RAID-Z write is a full-stripe write. This, when combined with the copy-on-write transactional semantics of ZFS, completely eliminates the RAID write hole. RAID-Z is also faster than traditional RAID because it never has to do read-modify-write."
Now, it is quite conceivable to me that BTRFS could possibly achieve a similar result, if it melds redundancy at the file system level as ZFS does, and uses similar careful design. But NOT just by the fact of implementing RAID5, which I read as your claim.
brambus has an excellent response which I am sure you have seen. He corrects some mis-speaks of my own, which are a bit at the detail level, including precisely how ZFS closes the write hole. So it doesn't finish the metadata update and then the data update. It instead atomically sets a pointer to the updated COW writes at the end. Either you get the uncorrupted "before", or the uncorrupted "after", depending on exactly when your power fails.
Are you going to overbuild the whole system 4x so that the 25% receiving good wind can drive all the rest of it? Are you going to make the grid so robust, so grossly overbuilt, that you can ship huge amounts of power over transcontinental distances, rather than just small balancing compensations? There will be enormous costs associated with that collossal effort.
I don't know what your definition of "significant" is, but the BTRFS wiki says "The one missing piece, from a reliability point of view, is that it is still vulnerable to the parity RAID 'write hole', where a partial write as a result of a power failure may result in inconsistent parity data." ZFS RAIDZ is expressly free from the write hole. That is very significant to me.
RAIDZ's write hole advantage is a product of three specifics: (1) RAID5 has n data disks plus one dedicated parity-only disk; ZFS distributes all data and all parity across all disks - (2) ZFS updates metadata before data; RAID5 has no concept of metadata - and (3) COW (both have this).
And before you object "but UPS" - UPSs and power supplies can fail, too - and a kernel panic is essentially a "power failure" too; one which a UPS is powerless to prevent.
If that Wiki should be out of date, you can show me something that isn't, but all I find out there is a lot of outdated stuff.
What do you mean it scales as you add more disks? You can't add disks to a ZFS array. You can replace them with bigger disks, but not just add them.
Wrong. You can't scale a pool by adding VDEVs to the existing pool, but you can expand without practical limit by generating VDEVs out of VDEVs and adding them. E.g., if you have 6 drives in a RAIDZ2, you can build a RAIDZ2 out of 6 (or some other number of) RAIDZ2s, including your original and 5 new ones. The downtime when you switch over to your expanded config is minimal. Think in terms of a minute or two if you plan right. The pool array setup is a background and incremental process, and the pool is available to start using essentially immediately. And your existing data is seamlessly preserved in place. You don't have to back up and restore. That's just an example.
In fact using a gigantic number of drives in a scalar array goes against good practice in ZFS and in other file systems. There is no real limit to how hierarchical your structure can be in ZFS, and still reduce to a single root (if you so wish).
The basic building block in ZFS is the VDEV. You make your striped, or mirrored, or striped-and-mirrored, or RAIDZ1 (single parity), RAIDZ2 (double parity), or RAIDZ3 (triple parity) array out of VDEVs, which can be whole drives, partitions, files, or VDEVs themselves. You can use any combination of any of these kinds of arrays as your VDEVs in your higher-level array.
If you play a game of trying to knock ZFS's design and capabilities, you will lose.
Raid support has been built into btrfs for ages now.
The commenter you are replying to plainly said RAIDZ. If you don't know how vastly superior RAIDZ is to RAID, you'd be better off not making your unwitting lack of knowledge so obvious.
Do you have a point, or are you just butthurt that not everyone has the same starry-eyed worship for capitalism?
You sure as HELL don't seem to be conversant with what it takes to pay the unconscionably through-the-roof costs of feeding yourself and warming yourself in the winter. Food prices and heating oil prices are through the roof. I don't thank selfish bastards for making themselves rich at my unavoidable expense. It's called realism, son.
Correct. Of course. That goes without saying. UNTIL it crosses the line. It always crosses the line. Their ponzi scheme for keeping everyone fat collapses, or the repression touches too many of the wrong nerves.
Google is just doing what any corporation does. The bottom line is their own aggrandizement. Anything they can get away with to that end they will do. Why do you have this fantasy that they are special?
Capitalism is all about strife and self-interest. It's inherent in the system. You can but-but that by bringing up the "invisible hand of the market", but it is a truism.
Slashdot Mirror
A thinking man. Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, you have to respect that Sanders is not in the corporatists' pocket, and cares about the people. I would be viewed as holding to a number of relatively conservative and libertarian views, but this man has my respect.
Does Apple's News app in china display a message "the shitty masters you put up with won't let you see real news, BITCHES"? I thought not. Apple is one among many actively propping up that hide bound gerontocracy.
"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." -Lenin. They will also gleefully cooperate with evil bastards.
I assume the objection is a gag. Nobody is this brainless.
But at what cost? To the unfortunate individual, and to society?
I won't buy that, forgive me, pablum. The capitalist system with patents does indeed get the development money spent - but then it allows somebody to make a selfish profit off people's misfortunes. The most profitable opportunities are pursued, not the most crying needs. It's only an accident if they coincide. An authority could be set up to do the research with only the reward of fair and normal salary, not a reward of striking it rich. Money would not be funneled to the 1%.
It is only a good thing. It cannot be a bad thing. You cannot convict anyone by jury nullification; only free someone. Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man hang.
Sorry, my representative is an obvious utter establishment tool. I won't communicate with him in any way. Mine is a one party state, but that is just a nail in the coffin. The corrupt establishment is the problem, not the political process.
It is sad that you think the problem is as simple and straightforward as gerrymandering.
Sorry, but no, it wasn't. Without blatantly literal sarcasm tags inserted, it doesn't work on the printed page. You can't criticize a reader for not picking up that what you are writing is the opposite of what you believe.
No offense, but maybe if you get pounded on the head enough you will understand that cynicism and sarcasm is very, very hard to pull off effectively in person with tonal and visual cues, and all but impossible on the printed page. My most friendly advice is to avoid trying it. It doesn't work.
There were regular elections, supported by a Constitutional framework, in the USSR. The Supreme Soviet was elected by popular vote, and in turn elected the Presidium and appointed the Council of Ministers and the Chairman (Khrushchev, etc). OK, there was no direct popular election for the Chairman, but the same thing is true of Parliamentary systems like the UK.
A weakness was that there was shadow control by the Communist party (Politburo) behind the scenes. Again, was that a ZOMG unique weakness? No. In the US, there is shadow control by the two big parties behind the scenes. They used to pick the nominees in smoke filled rooms in a convention. Then later we had primaries. Big deal. The establishment still controls who runs in those primaries. Does ANYONE think that ANY of those contesting in recent history for President are suitable for the job? Maybe some of the fringe players are, but they mysteriously get no popular support. The media makes fun of them and jokes about how they are not "real" contenders. Foul stories circulate about their past; their private lives.
"Complain to our elected representatives"? President Obama's big show of a system to petition the Executive to change things is completely hollow. Similarly, Congressmen pay no attention to constituents between the election cycles, and do no more than pull wool over the voters' eyes. The Soviet system similarly had "show" responsiveness, and it was similarly hollow.
The Communist party was a convenient focus of the shadow establishment in the USSR. We have a similar shadow establishment, but cannot even identify it or point to it. Which is the more clever yolk; the less susceptible to any kind of correction whatsoever?
N/T
I fear that it is rather clear that what they stand for is a lot of bullshit that has nothing at all to do with what your, and my, values and priorities are.
This is all getting pretty OT, but it is interesting.
I remember well when grub came on the scene. At first it blew my mind how complex they were making the apparently-simple job of booting. But when you really looked into it, it turned out that the process wasn't so simple at all, and there was a real and valid reason for everything that was done. It added as much complexity as needed to be added, and not really any more than that. (And then just when we started getting used to grub, along came grub2 and changed everything again ... yet it addressed real needs and the changes made sense if you spent enough time looking at the issues).
Contrast that to systemd. Yes, sysvinit had certain shortcomings, and yes, systemd did address these. But it also added more complexity than it needed to. It took on stuff that should have been completely separate issues - journald and subsumation of udev and some other tentacles, I'm looking at you. IMHO, if systemd had been architected as a general purpose bus into which the pieces could have been OPTIONALLY plugged without tight coupling, it would have addressed every one of the objections without any heartache or controversy. As it is, it is too much of a totalitarian bureaucracy, and needlessly so.
Anyway, throwing LSB to the curb is bullshit. They saved a grand total of maybe ten programmer-minutes by doing it. It should be no sur[rise that we read ulterior motives into it.
Due to their succession of idiotic policies and decisions, I will no longer be using nor recommending to anyone this ONCE-great product.
marquis - thank you - correction noted. It's been too long since I have used any kind of traditional RAID.
brambus - thank you for improving my knowledge of the details of this wonderful product - and thank you as a developer! There is a lot of bad info out there. At least I knew that the integrity was very cleverly guaranteed, even if I unwittingly took liberties with the details.
Thank you. Error accepted. I got bitten by some bad material on the web. What ZFS does do differently is this: every (variable size) logical block written is its own stripe. It does not have a fixed stripe size like RAID5, which more than one block may share. This eliminates some read-modifiy-writes which RAID5 has to do (with the attendant reduction in throughput), as well as being instrumental in closing the write hole. It can do this because the redundancy is implemented at the same level as the filesystem. I.e., it is aware of the data structure, which traditional RAID5 is not.
rahvin112 - You are unquestionably mistaken about the write hole. The design and implementation of ZFS specifically banishes it. Other respondents have made this clear with some authority, and I will only add this reference:
"RAID-Z is a data/parity scheme like RAID-5, but it uses dynamic stripe width. Every block is its own RAID-Z stripe, regardless of blocksize. This means that every RAID-Z write is a full-stripe write. This, when combined with the copy-on-write transactional semantics of ZFS, completely eliminates the RAID write hole. RAID-Z is also faster than traditional RAID because it never has to do read-modify-write."
Now, it is quite conceivable to me that BTRFS could possibly achieve a similar result, if it melds redundancy at the file system level as ZFS does, and uses similar careful design. But NOT just by the fact of implementing RAID5, which I read as your claim.
brambus has an excellent response which I am sure you have seen. He corrects some mis-speaks of my own, which are a bit at the detail level, including precisely how ZFS closes the write hole. So it doesn't finish the metadata update and then the data update. It instead atomically sets a pointer to the updated COW writes at the end. Either you get the uncorrupted "before", or the uncorrupted "after", depending on exactly when your power fails.
Are you going to overbuild the whole system 4x so that the 25% receiving good wind can drive all the rest of it? Are you going to make the grid so robust, so grossly overbuilt, that you can ship huge amounts of power over transcontinental distances, rather than just small balancing compensations? There will be enormous costs associated with that collossal effort.
I don't know what your definition of "significant" is, but the BTRFS wiki says "The one missing piece, from a reliability point of view, is that it is still vulnerable to the parity RAID 'write hole', where a partial write as a result of a power failure may result in inconsistent parity data." ZFS RAIDZ is expressly free from the write hole. That is very significant to me.
RAIDZ's write hole advantage is a product of three specifics: (1) RAID5 has n data disks plus one dedicated parity-only disk; ZFS distributes all data and all parity across all disks - (2) ZFS updates metadata before data; RAID5 has no concept of metadata - and (3) COW (both have this).
And before you object "but UPS" - UPSs and power supplies can fail, too - and a kernel panic is essentially a "power failure" too; one which a UPS is powerless to prevent.
If that Wiki should be out of date, you can show me something that isn't, but all I find out there is a lot of outdated stuff.
Wrong. You can't scale a pool by adding VDEVs to the existing pool, but you can expand without practical limit by generating VDEVs out of VDEVs and adding them. E.g., if you have 6 drives in a RAIDZ2, you can build a RAIDZ2 out of 6 (or some other number of) RAIDZ2s, including your original and 5 new ones. The downtime when you switch over to your expanded config is minimal. Think in terms of a minute or two if you plan right. The pool array setup is a background and incremental process, and the pool is available to start using essentially immediately. And your existing data is seamlessly preserved in place. You don't have to back up and restore. That's just an example.
In fact using a gigantic number of drives in a scalar array goes against good practice in ZFS and in other file systems. There is no real limit to how hierarchical your structure can be in ZFS, and still reduce to a single root (if you so wish).
The basic building block in ZFS is the VDEV. You make your striped, or mirrored, or striped-and-mirrored, or RAIDZ1 (single parity), RAIDZ2 (double parity), or RAIDZ3 (triple parity) array out of VDEVs, which can be whole drives, partitions, files, or VDEVs themselves. You can use any combination of any of these kinds of arrays as your VDEVs in your higher-level array.
If you play a game of trying to knock ZFS's design and capabilities, you will lose.
The commenter you are replying to plainly said RAIDZ. If you don't know how vastly superior RAIDZ is to RAID, you'd be better off not making your unwitting lack of knowledge so obvious.
Do you have a point, or are you just butthurt that not everyone has the same starry-eyed worship for capitalism?
You sure as HELL don't seem to be conversant with what it takes to pay the unconscionably through-the-roof costs of feeding yourself and warming yourself in the winter. Food prices and heating oil prices are through the roof. I don't thank selfish bastards for making themselves rich at my unavoidable expense. It's called realism, son.
Correct. Of course. That goes without saying. UNTIL it crosses the line. It always crosses the line. Their ponzi scheme for keeping everyone fat collapses, or the repression touches too many of the wrong nerves.
Google is just doing what any corporation does. The bottom line is their own aggrandizement. Anything they can get away with to that end they will do. Why do you have this fantasy that they are special?
Capitalism is all about strife and self-interest. It's inherent in the system. You can but-but that by bringing up the "invisible hand of the market", but it is a truism.