You're right, but I think you mean NuBus. SBus is found in SparcStations. I was discouraged from trying a different OS on my NuBus Mac for the lack of OS's that supported it. If your mac is PCI you're in luck!
In the case of a BSOD it is. The driver should be able to shite and piss all it wants, other elements of the OS should still stay standing.
For one bugg piece of code (inevitable in *nix AND windows, not to mention everyone else) to bring the whole system spiralling down means the OS did not protect one subsystem from another.
Now I'm not saying I haven't hung my Linux Sparc simply by typing "modprobe reiserfs", it happens. I am saying that if something shits itself on any Windows OS, you're likely to see the BSOD, not some message on your console "xyz: shat itself - dropping to console" for example.
The only old hardware that is obsolete is the kind that never functioned in the first place. The old Sparc Station sitting in the closet never did much beyond being a mailserver, and those NeXT boxs never got far beyond the industrial appliance phase
Was loving you until that remark.
The S in sparc stands for scaleable - and it really is. I've got them being much more than mailservers, and can't see why you can't do with your sparcs what you are doing with your [other "obsolete" hardware].
My SunSparc 20 is not even maxed out, and it's still a great desktop. I can't see me ever growing out of it.
Agree with you completely. Unfortunately, mine's not a Mac but a 450MHz peecee which I run Linux on. It used to give me the shits it was so fast (and obviously it is still every bit as fast) but I'd download the latest Linux distro and *hey* now we've got GTK2! And translucent terminals that aren't purely translucent and hundreds of tools (written in python, ever timed a "hello world" python program) ad nausem.
Where I used to hate Debian, I think it's great because I can actually choose the version that does everything rather than the one that does the same, just half as fast and looks uglier thanks to all the eye candy that chomps CPU gives you an ugly display in return.
I think I'll go back to X3.3.6, and not run ANYTHING that isn't supported on it. I'm not sure it's X4.x to blame, but since it's come out it seems the only advancements being made are putting shiney rounded corners on everything.
>Or am I missing something?
You nearly got them all. With "root squash" (the default) root is mapped to the "nobody" user, but he can still "su" to a user and access as them.
And anyway, all the NFS documentation I've read has given ample warnings that you must "trust the whole network, not the users". To say it in other words, if someone can connect to the network with an IP address that you export an FS to, you're compromised.
Yeah, you seem pretty typical. High UID, n othing of value in the history. You're not a fan of the guvment, are ya? Not that the UID says much on its own, but damn if some of the stupidest crap on this site isn't posted by the Over 600s, to say nothing of the 700s.
And your UID?! Notihng, you're posting anon.
Yep. pretty typical indeed. Anonymous Coward, nothing of value in the scrotal department. Not that you can generalise about AC's, but damn if some of the stupidest crap on this site isn't posted by the AC's.
What makes me laugh is that the next moderator to come along will probably think it more important to mod you or me down, rather than the redundant parent.
or even the chance of the motherboard itself "falling" onto the drive sandwich. The processor might pop out of it's slot, and then where would you be?
Fortunately the invention of the screw wasn't long after that of the computer, and at some time in the late 90's, we started using screws to fix things in place, at the same time as not being conspicuous.
Sorry to be sarcastic, but maybe you just didn't SEE the screws?
Okay then. I was hoping my brief reply would have made you stop, think and give you the opportunity to realise. Here we go then:
For starters, it's hard to put that many IDE drives on a single machine.
No it's not, and you seem to know it because you mention it later: ATA-RAID card
One wide-scsi card, fifteen devices, internal or external. With two of these you can house thirty drives. At this stage, you might have noticed you need to put, say, the last twenty-eight drives outside your machine, because your PSU can't handle them or you're out of space.
Got an external IDE cable? As far as I know you can't get them, because IDE needs a short cable, and is more interference prone.
I'm also informed you should only put one IDE drive on a bus, or performance sucks. No matter how good the ATA RAID card is, you're not going to hang as many drives off of one as you will even a NARROW SCSI card.
on the PC Mobo architecture, both IDE(SATA) and SCSI controllers are placed on the same PCI bus. So they obviously share the same PCI bandwidth. Did I miss anything?
Again, yes. The IDE card will still use more bandwidth because of it doing less by itself. The SCSI card does not because it requires less CPU intervention, and will not bottleneck the bus as soon. Sure a gang of IDE RAIDS could beat a single SCSI card if a bus bandwidth isn't the issue.
For HDD writes, RAM is useless. For reading, it could be usefull, don't you think?
Excuse me? Where did you hear that? RAM is _very_ useful for writes, which is why the cache on the disk is made out of, well, RAM. If anything, RAM helps writes better than it helps reads, IMHO.
Well, the drive that my powerbook had in it fits an IDE cable (ie has 40 pins). On that I had assumed the drive waas IDE, but may be SCSI somehow. I know it's got a SCSI port on the back, but I guess I was mistaken about the drive then.
Oh, and by the way, you've got more control over what goes on your/. front page than you do of your local rag. Check out your preferences. Admittedly you can't say "I don't want to read any more SCO stories, so I don't want anybody else to", and you do have the option of, say, moving on, if you don't like the topic. And you don't have to fold it up and take it to the sidewalk when you're done with it.
I respect your points - but remember to respect those of other people. I'm not looking at the moment, so I don't know if this is michael's story or Taco's or whatever, but they're obviously not the only people interested in it, as there's more than 400 posts to it ATM. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen so much on-topic-ness as in a SCSI-vs-IDE debate. I think even the GNAA guy had his say somewhere in there.
When evaluating whether I'm better served by a SCSI system by an IDE, I'll judge it simply by how comfortable I am with performance. I'm not going to time a dd or copy my pr0n tree from one drive to another and measure the times, for those results will only pertain to that particular operation.
If, on the other hand, I find myself saying "ooh, system booted fast" or "feels snappier when doing a/usr/bin/find" then I'll have given myself the impression I'm better served by SCSI.
And on the day I find myself saying "bit cramped, think I might add a disk" I'll KNOW I'm better served by SCSI. More than one drive on a bus eh? Who'd have thunk it?
on the PC Mobo architecture, both IDE(SATA) and SCSI controllers are placed on the same PCI bus. So they obviously share the same PCI bandwidth. Did I miss anything?
There's two things I've learned from this discussion.
1. Some people _still_ like IDE, and think it's better. I'll agree with them if they say it's a good _compromise_ _sometimes_.
2. Whatever I'm doing with my system is the real world. Whatever anybody else does with their system is completely subjective and has nothing to do with my system. Their results are biased, and intend to mislead. SCSI is, in fact only 25% the speed of IDE and yet still more expensive. People only continue to buy it because they're mad.
For all those who don't believe in the "benchmark" results offered, fine. Try a SCSI system one day. Don't like it? Don't use it. Don't pay for it.
IDE is fine by me right up until I need to add a second disk to the system.
The point is, IDE takes time from processes no matter how fast the CPU is. Just like a winmodem. That's why winmodems have a minimum CPU requirement.
I don't want a data bus that palms work off the the CPU, I want all of it. I want my sound CARD to do the sound processing, and my SCSI card to do the transaction scheduling.
Damn right. SCSI costs more, and people still set up with it. Must have something going for it. Like, oh, beingabletousemorethan onedriverpercontroller perhaps?
>Yes, but Hard Disks are not cheap, plus they spin down, and fail. You cannot reboot either once that happens.
I reckon they're cheap. Damn cheap in fact. And some ugly BIOS's won't boot if you're keyboard is not present, fair enough if the disk has failed.
>CD-ROMS, coupled with a small Ram Disk, don't have that problem.
Don't they? I've had CD-ROMS fail, and plenty more than hard disks. I also have CD-ROM's that "work" but can't read CD-R's. CD-ROM is my last choice for media to boot from or store to - I've found it to be much more unreliable.
>You can also usually enable read only in the BIOS of the DISK as well.
Yes, but this can be circumvented in software, and isn't much more secure than mounting read-only.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, but I think you mean NuBus. SBus is found in SparcStations. I was discouraged from trying a different OS on my NuBus Mac for the lack of OS's that supported it. If your mac is PCI you're in luck!
For one bugg piece of code (inevitable in *nix AND windows, not to mention everyone else) to bring the whole system spiralling down means the OS did not protect one subsystem from another.
Now I'm not saying I haven't hung my Linux Sparc simply by typing "modprobe reiserfs", it happens. I am saying that if something shits itself on any Windows OS, you're likely to see the BSOD, not some message on your console "xyz: shat itself - dropping to console" for example.
Was loving you until that remark.
The S in sparc stands for scaleable - and it really is. I've got them being much more than mailservers, and can't see why you can't do with your sparcs what you are doing with your [other "obsolete" hardware].
My SunSparc 20 is not even maxed out, and it's still a great desktop. I can't see me ever growing out of it.
Where I used to hate Debian, I think it's great because I can actually choose the version that does everything rather than the one that does the same, just half as fast and looks uglier thanks to all the eye candy that chomps CPU gives you an ugly display in return.
I think I'll go back to X3.3.6, and not run ANYTHING that isn't supported on it. I'm not sure it's X4.x to blame, but since it's come out it seems the only advancements being made are putting shiney rounded corners on everything.
You've got a Sun lunchbox? Classic or IPX? I'm your friend just for that.
You nearly got them all. With "root squash" (the default) root is mapped to the "nobody" user, but he can still "su" to a user and access as them.
And anyway, all the NFS documentation I've read has given ample warnings that you must "trust the whole network, not the users". To say it in other words, if someone can connect to the network with an IP address that you export an FS to, you're compromised.
And your UID?! Notihng, you're posting anon. Yep. pretty typical indeed. Anonymous Coward, nothing of value in the scrotal department. Not that you can generalise about AC's, but damn if some of the stupidest crap on this site isn't posted by the AC's.
At least the logged in trolls have the balls.
And he was wrong, too! Very informative indeed! Gotta love /. M1
Think, for a minute, what "Solaris" might actually mean.
I have a Sparc20 and an Indy set up like this. Very quiet, reasonably snappy by my standards, YMMV.
Why not buy a whole laptop, and retrofit it into a tower case eh? Get all the benefits, for only twice the price. Go on, hit me offtopic.
Fortunately the invention of the screw wasn't long after that of the computer, and at some time in the late 90's, we started using screws to fix things in place, at the same time as not being conspicuous.
Sorry to be sarcastic, but maybe you just didn't SEE the screws?
Okay then. I was hoping my brief reply would have made you stop, think and give you the opportunity to realise. Here we go then:
For starters, it's hard to put that many IDE drives on a single machine.
No it's not, and you seem to know it because you mention it later: ATA-RAID card
One wide-scsi card, fifteen devices, internal or external. With two of these you can house thirty drives. At this stage, you might have noticed you need to put, say, the last twenty-eight drives outside your machine, because your PSU can't handle them or you're out of space.
Got an external IDE cable? As far as I know you can't get them, because IDE needs a short cable, and is more interference prone.
I'm also informed you should only put one IDE drive on a bus, or performance sucks. No matter how good the ATA RAID card is, you're not going to hang as many drives off of one as you will even a NARROW SCSI card.
on the PC Mobo architecture, both IDE(SATA) and SCSI controllers are placed on the same PCI bus. So they obviously share the same PCI bandwidth. Did I miss anything?
Again, yes. The IDE card will still use more bandwidth because of it doing less by itself. The SCSI card does not because it requires less CPU intervention, and will not bottleneck the bus as soon. Sure a gang of IDE RAIDS could beat a single SCSI card if a bus bandwidth isn't the issue.
For HDD writes, RAM is useless. For reading, it could be usefull, don't you think?
Excuse me? Where did you hear that? RAM is _very_ useful for writes, which is why the cache on the disk is made out of, well, RAM. If anything, RAM helps writes better than it helps reads, IMHO.With sincerity,
YASS.
Well, the drive that my powerbook had in it fits an IDE cable (ie has 40 pins). On that I had assumed the drive waas IDE, but may be SCSI somehow. I know it's got a SCSI port on the back, but I guess I was mistaken about the drive then.
Oh, and by the way, you've got more control over what goes on your /. front page than you do of your local rag. Check out your preferences. Admittedly you can't say "I don't want to read any more SCO stories, so I don't want anybody else to", and you do have the option of, say, moving on, if you don't like the topic. And you don't have to fold it up and take it to the sidewalk when you're done with it.
I respect your points - but remember to respect those of other people. I'm not looking at the moment, so I don't know if this is michael's story or Taco's or whatever, but they're obviously not the only people interested in it, as there's more than 400 posts to it ATM. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen so much on-topic-ness as in a SCSI-vs-IDE debate. I think even the GNAA guy had his say somewhere in there.
When evaluating whether I'm better served by a SCSI system by an IDE, I'll judge it simply by how comfortable I am with performance. I'm not going to time a dd or copy my pr0n tree from one drive to another and measure the times, for those results will only pertain to that particular operation.
If, on the other hand, I find myself saying "ooh, system booted fast" or "feels snappier when doing a /usr/bin/find" then I'll have given myself the impression I'm better served by SCSI.
And on the day I find myself saying "bit cramped, think I might add a disk" I'll KNOW I'm better served by SCSI. More than one drive on a bus eh? Who'd have thunk it?
Yep.
1. Some people _still_ like IDE, and think it's better. I'll agree with them if they say it's a good _compromise_ _sometimes_.
2. Whatever I'm doing with my system is the real world. Whatever anybody else does with their system is completely subjective and has nothing to do with my system. Their results are biased, and intend to mislead. SCSI is, in fact only 25% the speed of IDE and yet still more expensive. People only continue to buy it because they're mad.
For all those who don't believe in the "benchmark" results offered, fine. Try a SCSI system one day. Don't like it? Don't use it. Don't pay for it.
IDE is fine by me right up until I need to add a second disk to the system.
I don't want a data bus that palms work off the the CPU, I want all of it. I want my sound CARD to do the sound processing, and my SCSI card to do the transaction scheduling.
The powerbook 170 was a nice machine really, but it ain't got SCSI.
In fact the 170 had a SCSI connector on the back, but the internal drive is on an IDE bus.
Rip it open. I think you'll find it's not a SCSI drive. The powerbook 170 was a nice machine really, but it ain't got SCSI.
Damn right. SCSI costs more, and people still set up with it. Must have something going for it. Like, oh, beingabletousemorethan onedriverpercontroller perhaps?
I reckon they're cheap. Damn cheap in fact. And some ugly BIOS's won't boot if you're keyboard is not present, fair enough if the disk has failed.
>CD-ROMS, coupled with a small Ram Disk, don't have that problem.
Don't they? I've had CD-ROMS fail, and plenty more than hard disks. I also have CD-ROM's that "work" but can't read CD-R's. CD-ROM is my last choice for media to boot from or store to - I've found it to be much more unreliable.
>You can also usually enable read only in the BIOS of the DISK as well.
Yes, but this can be circumvented in software, and isn't much more secure than mounting read-only.
I respectfully disagree with you.