That does nothing for every failure mode I've encountered.
Those being, drive motor stops spinning the drive up, or the heads stop working (click click click).
Since either of those would break your idea, it makes it rather useless to build a 'redundant device' that protects against failure modes that nobody experiences because the other failure modes happen first.
Two sets of heads 180 degrees apart may increase your sequential throughput, but unless they can seek to different locations that the other heads, then you aren't changing seek time.
You haven't actually solved a speed, sector error, or capacity issue that doesn't get resolved the exact same way with 2 disks mirrored, except that with 2 disks you get all the protection of your own super disk, as well as protection against most of the things that will take out your superdisk.
I'm not sure why it seems like a bright idea to essentially take a raid, put it in a single box, and then take away a few layers of redundancy and advantages. Fortunately there are plenty of mods on slashdot who don't actually analyze something for throwing an interesting mod at it.
That data is also stored on multiple machines across multiple data centers.
Google doesn't lose data. They lose drives, sometimes machines, and on rare occasion a full data center, the do not however lose data because any one of those is insignificant when you store copies of everything on multiple continents.
If there aren't enough drives to spread the blocks across distinct drives than it can't put multiple copies on different drives.
If you read the documentation, and take the IRC excerpt in context, you'll see that you simply need multiple disks to achieve the goal. You basically have to ignore his first line to take the second line to mean what you say.
Put two vdevs of equal size into a zpool, set copies=2 and you will have copies stored on 2 physical disks, and depending on your setup RAIDz or mirrored at the vdev level as well.
zfs is predictable. It is not random. You can gaurantee copies=2 will store data on different drives by simply creating it properly, with multiple vdevs, and setting copies=2 while there is sufficient space.
The caveat is: copies=2 can't store on 2 separate disks if you only have one disk.
Use smaller disks groups concatentated together for larger storage volumes.
Don't use 3 drives of 1TB each to get 2TB of raid. Use 9 333MB drives.
3 virtual devices, lets called them vdevs. You configure each virtual devices with 3 drives in a RAID5 or 6 configuration. Then build one big pool, lets call it a zpool, out of the 3 vdevs.
Then when one drive fails, it only takes the time for 333MB to copy, not 1TB.
Lets roll it all up into one complete system. Lets build a file system that goes right along with it, with proper consistence and snapshots, and make an efficient way to (insert the rest of the ZFS commercial here).
Then we could name it something cool... like zfs...
Every drive has a hole to make sure pressure is balanced inside and out. Most of them have nothing at all over the hole. A few have a small piece of open cell foam covering the hole on the inside.
The reality of it is however, very little air is going to transition through that hole due to its small size, so dust build up is going to take a little while under normal circumstances.
Water is a different material with different material properties. Light travels at a different speed in water as well, but it isn't faster.
The speed of sound increases at an inverse proportion to air pressure as well. As aircraft get higher in the atmosphere, the speed of sound increases.
You wouldn't want a higher density gas in the drive enclosure, you'd want a lower density gas and a better method of avoid head strikes.
You also wouldn't want water in your drive enclosure since the drag and turbulence are much higher for it than any gas I'm aware of, even with an increased speed of sound.
What's wrong with teaching kids about respecting copyright?
Nothing is wrong with it. We should indeed teach our children to respect the law, and change what they don't agree with in a legal manner
Most artists are not rich. The ability to control their music, pictures, paintings, designs, etc. allows them to pay bills very much in line with the ordinary Joe. It's a job. They should get paid for their job, if their work is in demand.
Most artist aren't any good, thats most of why they aren't rich. The should get paid for their work. Where I disagree is that they should get paid some ridiculous amount of money for 0 cost copies of their work, which is what this is actually about
The Internet generation seems to think that if you can touch something, you can have it. I've started to see that 'entitlement' thing that the older folks keep talking about. Stuff on the Internet is not necessarily free. Sure, there are plenty of people who do make their songs, pictures etc. available for free legitimately. Why not download that? I'm betting it's because much of the time, it's not nearly as good as the paid-for stuff.
People realize that there is a fundemental flaw with someone charging for something they had no involvement in. People realize that when I give my brother a copy of some MP3s that the only actual cost is the power used. The people you speak of seem to be a little more aware of the entitlement situation than you. They realize that 'the artist'/record label/whatever aren't ENTITLED to money for things the have no involvement in. People don't generally feel entitled if someone else puts something in to it. A digitial copy has 0 cost to make, regardless of the imaginary costs the labels create.
My giving someone a copy of a song DOES NOT TRANSLATE TO A LOST SALE automatically. It is NOT lost revenue. It is not THEFT. Using these retarded arguments is why no one gives a fuck about the labels, RIAA, or MPAA any more.
More people should be taught to respect copyright; even if it only leads to a change in the laws on the books (specifically, I hate the lifetime+70. Far too long.). But illegal downloading really IS stealing. I know that's an unpopular view, and the cartels have done nefarious things trying to enforce the laws, but it remains a fact.
I really don't know anyone that doesn't respect reasonable copyrights and enforcement. Even software pirates support it in a limited form
I think downloading something that is meant for public consumption for free is perfectly acceptable. You want to make money, make money from what requires work. Don't expect me to just give you money for something that it takes out nothing to reproduce.
I'll be happy to pay to come to your show if you're good.
Go fuck yourself if you think a my replication of an electron pattern which I produced without changing entitles you to get money from me.
People deal fine with 'reasonable' and will as a general rule, follow the law. When the law becomes unreasonable, people largely ignore it, I certainly will.
The laws regarding copyright are unreasonable, and better yet, openly purchased from the politicians by media companies. No balanced sane person will ever respect those laws.
Linux alters the power dynamic of the OEM+Microsoft relationship a bit.
Based on your own comments:
No. Microsoft can't tolerate competitors. So they stopped trying to IGNORE the product that people wanted.
Linux matters very little to them, all they had to do was stop completely ignoring it and they took it over in a really short period of time. Its just helping them find new markets, recently they've had to create new markets themselves artificially. Linux is just finding them and showing MS where its missing out.
I reinstall all of my OSes every couple of years. It just helps get rid of all the little things that have slipped through the cracks.
With Windows you notice more of an improvement, but with any OS, if you've been screwing with it over the past few years, installing new software, uninstalling, upgrading ect., it all becomes messy and a clean install will always produce a better result.
Outside of the slashdot community, who the hell runs an OS on a USB drive?
Seriously, thats not a way to 'try' an OS unless you want to see how badly it can run.
I admit to using a few tiny installs (FreeNAS and ESXi for instance) off USB, but thats only cause they boot and run from RAM. No sane person runs off a USB drive unless you're scanning for viruses or just toying around. Neither of which are things that matter to almost anyone running Windows.
I don't know, Java, C++ and python all run at fine speeds if you write proper code for the language. C++ is probably the fastest in most cases, but Java is going to be a real close second written properly and on the right VM. While I don't like python myself, theres a reason it gets used in games, it can perform well enough to be used extensively if you can deal with compile time, which wouldn't really matter for long running process like a web server.
Perl isn't HORRIBLE, again, startup time is its biggest problem. PHP has issues, but when zend, precompiling and caching again, it works better than most expect.
I know nothing at all of Erlang so I won't speak to it.
MySQL is known for being fast as hell under the right workload, just gotta use it the right way.
Mix in some memcached and you can server a lot of hits. Considering the number of extremely high traffic websites that use a mix of software about like this one, I think you'd have to be pretty stupid to put the blame on the software thats used.
Do you run a server farm that gets more traffic than Wikipedia, Yahoo or MySpace? I'll talk some shit about languages and say that everything should be written in C at the highest, by proper programmers so we don't end up with OSes that need gigs of ram to boot... but...
While possible, even I'm not arrogant enough to call them stupid.
I don't find anything about Wikipedia's setup 'impressive', but its certainly done properly. Their mix of php, python and mysql is all used exactly as is should be and serves a massive amount of people on a relatively low amount of processing power.
No one is to blame for suicide but the person who commits it. Its their choice. Nothing is that bad, nothing. No one 'made him commit suicide', he did it on his own.
Why is it no one can take responsibility for their own actions anymore.
Its not a big deal, admitting you made a mistake is pretty easy and has almost 0 cost as in almost every case its easier to say 'I did it, I was wrong' than defend against it as people will just say 'thanks for admitting it' and move on.
Whats even better, its it gets people like yourself to go away and stop bugging them at no cost. Gullible are we.
Well, since you won't get it onto a Windows install by default, or an OS X install by default, you won't find anyone creating a new file system that matchs FAT anytime soon.
And really... ufs is far more supported than ext2, so that would be a far wiser choice.
You haven't used Unix very long have you? It was only relatively recently that journaling became common enough that background fsck's were common. Without access to the journal, ntfs mounts have the same problem as the old non-journaled ufs, and ext2.
I'm not sure why even you have a problem with it, it does mount it, it just warns you that its a bad idea since the driver is incomplete and can't do anything with the journal.
So you installed an RDP client so they could connect to a Windows machine to run their accounting software right? Or by accountant do you mean somebody that thinks Excel is 'accounting software'
I hear this bullshit often, and thats what it is, bullshit. If you don't actually do anything with the computer, or you are technical enough to deal with a bunch of software that doesn't quite do what you want, then you can run Linux. If your job isn't to make computers work, but to use them to get shit done with the rest of the business world, you aren't running Linux, you're running something that you can hire people who have used it before.
This doesn't just apply to Linux, as I said, I'd love to drop Windows in favor of OS X at the office, however, I'd much more rather not go out of business because no one could use the apps they knew how to use.
I don't try to convert people, I'm not on some retarded crusade. I realize the computer is a tool. If it was some random person who didn't do anything but browse web pages and use gmail, then I might consider converting them. Anyone else, that actually needs to get shit down with other people in the business world, I'm not under some delusion that OpenOffice and Firefox are the only apps that get used.
Its not being lazy, its using the right tool for the job, which is where Linux tends to fall short. My Windows machines are reliable and low-maintenance, they auto update themselves, users don't run as admins, and we haven't had a virus infection in the 5 years or so since I took over management of the network, can't speak about before that, and thats with an OS thats actually a target for malware. You get all high and might about an OS that no one gives a shit about not getting infected.
Just curious, will anyone ever be able to do enough to get the GPL fanboys to stop their fucking whining?
Do you not realize the more extremist the GPL community, FSF and the cult of Stallman becomes, the less the rest of the world is going to take you seriously?
You've gotten so retarded that I'm no longer to the point of preferring anything BUT a GPL license, I'm going to have to start actively moving away from GPL crap on principal.
You're all going to end up just sitting around a circle jerk playing with Linux and bitching about how no one uses it regardless of how awesome it is. Everytime you get all bitchy and do the 'I'll take my toys and go home' stunt you just make the rest of the world realize that the 'FUD' MS spreads about MS may not actually be such complete FUD after all.
VMWares products exist because of Linux. They are built on Linux.
I can't think of a single MS product that exists because of Linux.
These drivers are unlike to be 'useful' to Microsoft in any way that I can see. All it does is helps facilitate moving to Linux in a completely Microsoft shop.
Yes, its a little different, VMWare depends on Linux, MS does not.
You mean for him or for the douche bag complaining about the quality of the kernel drivers? Its difficult for me to determine whos whining you're referring to.
I have to assume you're referring to the person you are replying to, but to most sane rational people, it would seem that the original article is more whiney than this guys post. Looks like you just proved his point for him.
Yet no one offers any evidence to the contrary. You guys are awesome. Get what you want, you whine about it. Someone does the same shit you do, you whine about it and act like its a bad thing.
Gee... I wonder why so many businesses avoid this particular group of people...
You know, when you had no friends when you were younger... ever thing maybe there was a reason for it. Theres a reason no one likes you.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, awesome ... redundant spindles...
That does nothing for every failure mode I've encountered.
Those being, drive motor stops spinning the drive up, or the heads stop working (click click click).
Since either of those would break your idea, it makes it rather useless to build a 'redundant device' that protects against failure modes that nobody experiences because the other failure modes happen first.
Two sets of heads 180 degrees apart may increase your sequential throughput, but unless they can seek to different locations that the other heads, then you aren't changing seek time.
You haven't actually solved a speed, sector error, or capacity issue that doesn't get resolved the exact same way with 2 disks mirrored, except that with 2 disks you get all the protection of your own super disk, as well as protection against most of the things that will take out your superdisk.
I'm not sure why it seems like a bright idea to essentially take a raid, put it in a single box, and then take away a few layers of redundancy and advantages. Fortunately there are plenty of mods on slashdot who don't actually analyze something for throwing an interesting mod at it.
You realize one layer of ZFS is software raid ... right?
That data is also stored on multiple machines across multiple data centers.
Google doesn't lose data. They lose drives, sometimes machines, and on rare occasion a full data center, the do not however lose data because any one of those is insignificant when you store copies of everything on multiple continents.
If there aren't enough drives to spread the blocks across distinct drives than it can't put multiple copies on different drives.
If you read the documentation, and take the IRC excerpt in context, you'll see that you simply need multiple disks to achieve the goal. You basically have to ignore his first line to take the second line to mean what you say.
Put two vdevs of equal size into a zpool, set copies=2 and you will have copies stored on 2 physical disks, and depending on your setup RAIDz or mirrored at the vdev level as well.
zfs is predictable. It is not random. You can gaurantee copies=2 will store data on different drives by simply creating it properly, with multiple vdevs, and setting copies=2 while there is sufficient space.
The caveat is: copies=2 can't store on 2 separate disks if you only have one disk.
And my comment on that is ... no shit Sherlock.
I don't see whats so difficult about this.
Use smaller disks groups concatentated together for larger storage volumes.
Don't use 3 drives of 1TB each to get 2TB of raid. Use 9 333MB drives.
3 virtual devices, lets called them vdevs.
You configure each virtual devices with 3 drives in a RAID5 or 6 configuration.
Then build one big pool, lets call it a zpool, out of the 3 vdevs.
Then when one drive fails, it only takes the time for 333MB to copy, not 1TB.
Lets roll it all up into one complete system. Lets build a file system that goes right along with it, with proper consistence and snapshots, and make an efficient way to (insert the rest of the ZFS commercial here).
Then we could name it something cool ... like zfs ...
This has been solved already.
Yes.
Every drive has a hole to make sure pressure is balanced inside and out. Most of them have nothing at all over the hole. A few have a small piece of open cell foam covering the hole on the inside.
The reality of it is however, very little air is going to transition through that hole due to its small size, so dust build up is going to take a little while under normal circumstances.
Water is a different material with different material properties. Light travels at a different speed in water as well, but it isn't faster.
The speed of sound increases at an inverse proportion to air pressure as well. As aircraft get higher in the atmosphere, the speed of sound increases.
You wouldn't want a higher density gas in the drive enclosure, you'd want a lower density gas and a better method of avoid head strikes.
You also wouldn't want water in your drive enclosure since the drag and turbulence are much higher for it than any gas I'm aware of, even with an increased speed of sound.
Nothing is wrong with it. We should indeed teach our children to respect the law, and change what they don't agree with in a legal manner
Most artist aren't any good, thats most of why they aren't rich. The should get paid for their work. Where I disagree is that they should get paid some ridiculous amount of money for 0 cost copies of their work, which is what this is actually about
People realize that there is a fundemental flaw with someone charging for something they had no involvement in. People realize that when I give my brother a copy of some MP3s that the only actual cost is the power used. The people you speak of seem to be a little more aware of the entitlement situation than you. They realize that 'the artist'/record label/whatever aren't ENTITLED to money for things the have no involvement in. People don't generally feel entitled if someone else puts something in to it. A digitial copy has 0 cost to make, regardless of the imaginary costs the labels create.
My giving someone a copy of a song DOES NOT TRANSLATE TO A LOST SALE automatically. It is NOT lost revenue. It is not THEFT. Using these retarded arguments is why no one gives a fuck about the labels, RIAA, or MPAA any more.
I really don't know anyone that doesn't respect reasonable copyrights and enforcement. Even software pirates support it in a limited form
I think downloading something that is meant for public consumption for free is perfectly acceptable. You want to make money, make money from what requires work. Don't expect me to just give you money for something that it takes out nothing to reproduce.
I'll be happy to pay to come to your show if you're good.
Go fuck yourself if you think a my replication of an electron pattern which I produced without changing entitles you to get money from me.
People deal fine with 'reasonable' and will as a general rule, follow the law. When the law becomes unreasonable, people largely ignore it, I certainly will.
The laws regarding copyright are unreasonable, and better yet, openly purchased from the politicians by media companies. No balanced sane person will ever respect those laws.
I think you just pointed out why it won't sell well.
Based on your own comments:
Linux matters very little to them, all they had to do was stop completely ignoring it and they took it over in a really short period of time. Its just helping them find new markets, recently they've had to create new markets themselves artificially. Linux is just finding them and showing MS where its missing out.
I reinstall all of my OSes every couple of years. It just helps get rid of all the little things that have slipped through the cracks.
With Windows you notice more of an improvement, but with any OS, if you've been screwing with it over the past few years, installing new software, uninstalling, upgrading ect., it all becomes messy and a clean install will always produce a better result.
Outside of the slashdot community, who the hell runs an OS on a USB drive?
Seriously, thats not a way to 'try' an OS unless you want to see how badly it can run.
I admit to using a few tiny installs (FreeNAS and ESXi for instance) off USB, but thats only cause they boot and run from RAM. No sane person runs off a USB drive unless you're scanning for viruses or just toying around. Neither of which are things that matter to almost anyone running Windows.
I don't know, Java, C++ and python all run at fine speeds if you write proper code for the language. C++ is probably the fastest in most cases, but Java is going to be a real close second written properly and on the right VM. While I don't like python myself, theres a reason it gets used in games, it can perform well enough to be used extensively if you can deal with compile time, which wouldn't really matter for long running process like a web server.
Perl isn't HORRIBLE, again, startup time is its biggest problem. PHP has issues, but when zend, precompiling and caching again, it works better than most expect.
I know nothing at all of Erlang so I won't speak to it.
MySQL is known for being fast as hell under the right workload, just gotta use it the right way.
Mix in some memcached and you can server a lot of hits.
Considering the number of extremely high traffic websites that use a mix of software about like this one, I think you'd have to be pretty stupid to put the blame on the software thats used.
Do you run a server farm that gets more traffic than Wikipedia, Yahoo or MySpace? I'll talk some shit about languages and say that everything should be written in C at the highest, by proper programmers so we don't end up with OSes that need gigs of ram to boot ... but ...
While possible, even I'm not arrogant enough to call them stupid.
I don't find anything about Wikipedia's setup 'impressive', but its certainly done properly. Their mix of php, python and mysql is all used exactly as is should be and serves a massive amount of people on a relatively low amount of processing power.
But again ... stupid? No, they are hardly stupid.
Because your sexuality has no effect on your ability to do work? It didn't get put in the list because it is irrelevant.
If you want to be treated equally than thats what you get.
So you want to be treated as equal or different? You don't get both, regardless of how special you think you are.
No one is to blame for suicide but the person who commits it. Its their choice. Nothing is that bad, nothing. No one 'made him commit suicide', he did it on his own.
Why is it no one can take responsibility for their own actions anymore.
Its not a big deal, admitting you made a mistake is pretty easy and has almost 0 cost as in almost every case its easier to say 'I did it, I was wrong' than defend against it as people will just say 'thanks for admitting it' and move on.
Whats even better, its it gets people like yourself to go away and stop bugging them at no cost. Gullible are we.
Real genius?
If you were a real genius you wouldn't put yourself in a situation that sucks ass for you.
Well, since you won't get it onto a Windows install by default, or an OS X install by default, you won't find anyone creating a new file system that matchs FAT anytime soon.
And really ... ufs is far more supported than ext2, so that would be a far wiser choice.
You haven't used Unix very long have you? It was only relatively recently that journaling became common enough that background fsck's were common. Without access to the journal, ntfs mounts have the same problem as the old non-journaled ufs, and ext2.
I'm not sure why even you have a problem with it, it does mount it, it just warns you that its a bad idea since the driver is incomplete and can't do anything with the journal.
FUSE in general is slow, nature of the beast.
So you installed an RDP client so they could connect to a Windows machine to run their accounting software right? Or by accountant do you mean somebody that thinks Excel is 'accounting software'
I hear this bullshit often, and thats what it is, bullshit. If you don't actually do anything with the computer, or you are technical enough to deal with a bunch of software that doesn't quite do what you want, then you can run Linux. If your job isn't to make computers work, but to use them to get shit done with the rest of the business world, you aren't running Linux, you're running something that you can hire people who have used it before.
This doesn't just apply to Linux, as I said, I'd love to drop Windows in favor of OS X at the office, however, I'd much more rather not go out of business because no one could use the apps they knew how to use.
I don't try to convert people, I'm not on some retarded crusade. I realize the computer is a tool. If it was some random person who didn't do anything but browse web pages and use gmail, then I might consider converting them. Anyone else, that actually needs to get shit down with other people in the business world, I'm not under some delusion that OpenOffice and Firefox are the only apps that get used.
Its not being lazy, its using the right tool for the job, which is where Linux tends to fall short. My Windows machines are reliable and low-maintenance, they auto update themselves, users don't run as admins, and we haven't had a virus infection in the 5 years or so since I took over management of the network, can't speak about before that, and thats with an OS thats actually a target for malware. You get all high and might about an OS that no one gives a shit about not getting infected.
Just curious, will anyone ever be able to do enough to get the GPL fanboys to stop their fucking whining?
Do you not realize the more extremist the GPL community, FSF and the cult of Stallman becomes, the less the rest of the world is going to take you seriously?
You've gotten so retarded that I'm no longer to the point of preferring anything BUT a GPL license, I'm going to have to start actively moving away from GPL crap on principal.
You're all going to end up just sitting around a circle jerk playing with Linux and bitching about how no one uses it regardless of how awesome it is. Everytime you get all bitchy and do the 'I'll take my toys and go home' stunt you just make the rest of the world realize that the 'FUD' MS spreads about MS may not actually be such complete FUD after all.
VMWares products exist because of Linux. They are built on Linux.
I can't think of a single MS product that exists because of Linux.
These drivers are unlike to be 'useful' to Microsoft in any way that I can see. All it does is helps facilitate moving to Linux in a completely Microsoft shop.
Yes, its a little different, VMWare depends on Linux, MS does not.
You mean for him or for the douche bag complaining about the quality of the kernel drivers? Its difficult for me to determine whos whining you're referring to.
I have to assume you're referring to the person you are replying to, but to most sane rational people, it would seem that the original article is more whiney than this guys post. Looks like you just proved his point for him.
Good job, you proved his point to the letter with your post and your modding.
Yet no one offers any evidence to the contrary. You guys are awesome. Get what you want, you whine about it. Someone does the same shit you do, you whine about it and act like its a bad thing.
Gee ... I wonder why so many businesses avoid this particular group of people ...
You know, when you had no friends when you were younger ... ever thing maybe there was a reason for it. Theres a reason no one likes you.