We've taken away the right to respond appropriately on the school grounds. If you give it back to your bully, you get in trouble. If you're going to get in trouble, might as well make it worthwhile. That's what we did.
Here in Canada with have citizen groups that have investigative powers over the police, rather than the police investigating themselves for situation where a citizen is injured or killed.
There's nothing stopping an enterprise hard drive from doing the same thing -- my point was that its not necessary to add additional components on the spinning disc version. More importantly, my point was just that there are very few other benefits to spinning discs in the first place.
Yawn, your posts are boring me because to some of us the math is too obvious to be bothered explaining to others.
It is in fact *exactly* how insurance companies work. They know they need to plan ahead for N payouts of X dollars, that a specific insurer has an M percentage chance of making a claim of Y dollars, and charges them Z per year to cover that annualized cost of those possible payouts (plus profit in their case).
If you're not doing the same math for hardware replacement, especially in business, you have no business making computer decisions.
Your entire post is nonsensical. Nowhere in my post or the gp to my post did we assume anyone loses data or doesn't do backups.
I do drive allocations for enterprise customers, we sell dozens of drives, not one or two. We make people do daily off-site backups. We enforce RAID-1 minimally for all storage. This all comes from understanding annualized failure rates on drives, which is what I posted.
Once you understand how drives fail, and what it will cost you to replace them, you can plan ahead for those costs.
Understanding *that* they fail at all means using RAID for high availability systems and backups for all systems.
All electronics fail on a bathtub curve... they either fail predominantly when new, or when old, and rarely in the middle. That's why burn-ins are common among the knowledgeable -- it gets you past that initial failure stage before you've used the drive for something important.
Except they've priced their drives so low that you're looking at 40% of very little... on a per-unit basis, they're still making very little money and better have a very low return rate to account for it.
No he's doing the math right -- At an annual failure rate of 1%, you need to replace 1% of your total capacity every year. With an annualized failure rate of 5%, you need to replace 5% of that capacity overall. The averaging is done because over time, it works out, just like insurance. Sure, on any given year *if* a drive fails, you have to pay for the whole thing, but that's not how one accounts for such failures.
Most Apple people I know tell me how much they love their iPhone's default interface only because they didn't realize they could have half the screen devoted to the weather and a scrolling list of photos/videos instead.
I know some of you actually know what Android offers, but many iPhone users genuinely believe they were the first to get that notification tray and the new fingerprint feature.
Slashdot Mirror
Americans in general seem completely oblivious to their over-use of imprisonment.
We've taken away the right to respond appropriately on the school grounds. If you give it back to your bully, you get in trouble. If you're going to get in trouble, might as well make it worthwhile. That's what we did.
Here in Canada with have citizen groups that have investigative powers over the police, rather than the police investigating themselves for situation where a citizen is injured or killed.
You have the right to actual guns, not depictions of guns lol
Nobody said the RAID set would be two SSDs.
cf. http://tansi.info/hybrid/
The size of a data set is irrelevant. Only the size of RAM allocatable by a single process.
There's nothing stopping an enterprise hard drive from doing the same thing -- my point was that its not necessary to add additional components on the spinning disc version. More importantly, my point was just that there are very few other benefits to spinning discs in the first place.
Pay for better insurance, make backups, and don't worry about it as much.
Yawn, your posts are boring me because to some of us the math is too obvious to be bothered explaining to others.
It is in fact *exactly* how insurance companies work. They know they need to plan ahead for N payouts of X dollars, that a specific insurer has an M percentage chance of making a claim of Y dollars, and charges them Z per year to cover that annualized cost of those possible payouts (plus profit in their case).
If you're not doing the same math for hardware replacement, especially in business, you have no business making computer decisions.
Your entire post is nonsensical. Nowhere in my post or the gp to my post did we assume anyone loses data or doesn't do backups.
I do drive allocations for enterprise customers, we sell dozens of drives, not one or two. We make people do daily off-site backups. We enforce RAID-1 minimally for all storage. This all comes from understanding annualized failure rates on drives, which is what I posted.
Once you understand how drives fail, and what it will cost you to replace them, you can plan ahead for those costs.
Understanding *that* they fail at all means using RAID for high availability systems and backups for all systems.
Actual numbers from actual studies please.
Anecdotes are not data.
This is not flamebait, its correct:
If you don't understand why, read up on annualized failure rates. Someone get out your informative mod and read the parent.
Some people don't do math well so I just ignore them but good reply.
All electronics fail on a bathtub curve ... they either fail predominantly when new, or when old, and rarely in the middle. That's why burn-ins are common among the knowledgeable -- it gets you past that initial failure stage before you've used the drive for something important.
Except they've priced their drives so low that you're looking at 40% of very little... on a per-unit basis, they're still making very little money and better have a very low return rate to account for it.
No he's doing the math right -- At an annual failure rate of 1%, you need to replace 1% of your total capacity every year. With an annualized failure rate of 5%, you need to replace 5% of that capacity overall. The averaging is done because over time, it works out, just like insurance. Sure, on any given year *if* a drive fails, you have to pay for the whole thing, but that's not how one accounts for such failures.
For any reasonable code size, the data's all cached in memory already from you editing and saving the files in question.
Even the 840 Pro isn't that expensive actually, just ordered one today.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147193
One of the few benefits of a spinning platter is that they can briefly generate their own juice when the power goes out.
Having dealt with RADIUS configurations, it would add a *lot* of overhead to administer logins for every student and staff at a public school.
That said, I agree :)
Every time I hear about my American neighbours and their cell phone market, I'm glad not to live there.
Nobody's putting NFC in devices? Do you drink Apple koolaid or something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NFC-enabled_mobile_devices
Most Apple people I know tell me how much they love their iPhone's default interface only because they didn't realize they could have half the screen devoted to the weather and a scrolling list of photos/videos instead.
I know some of you actually know what Android offers, but many iPhone users genuinely believe they were the first to get that notification tray and the new fingerprint feature.
I seriously doubt Samsung would be where they are today if Nokia had been competing with them properly in the Galaxy S era.
Don't forget Sony and Dell and Huawei and ... oh nevermind. There is room for one more, yes.