I hate replying to myself, but if anybody hasn't noticed that CmdrTaco has been trying to tell us something and by this article he has apparently given up:
Alan Cox Leaves Red Hat
Posted by CmdrTaco on 10:11 AM -- Tuesday December 30 2008
from the bet-wherrever-he's-going-he'll-have-electricity-and-heat dept.
The Fight Over NASA's Future
Posted by CmdrTaco on 08:15 AM -- Tuesday December 30 2008
from the still-no-power-at-my-house dept.
Storm Causes AT&T Outage Across Midwest
Posted by CmdrTaco on 08:55 AM -- Monday December 29 2008
from the guess-who-this-includes dept.
So he's without power and worse no internet at his home, aww poor CmdrTaco. Somebody please think of the slashdot editors! Anybody got a spare generator and fuel?;)
Its not just Torque, but all other 3D game engines with multiplayer, especially at the very least Quake 2 era, does the exact same thing. Its common sense in 3D rendering when objects aren't visible to the camera you shouldn't feed them to the renderer to be processed and rendered since you're just wasting time. In this particular case its targeting specifically MMO games and not 3D games in general. It appears to be like the same crap that went on with the blackberry lawsuit a few years back about a wireless email patent.
There already has existed such a feature in Internet Explorer since at least 4.0 which uses W3C's PICS Labels. There has been the Internet Content Rating Association that has been around for a long time promoting that webmasters use PICS Labels to rate their own site and it is completely up to them on how to rate their own sites, of which has its pros and cons (such as webmasters intentionally misrating their site to be assholes).
I just checked firefox 3.0.5 and it doesn't even support PICS Labels, so anybody knows about the other web browsers? I personally have the web content rating disabled in IE because I don't want it, but I could parents might have a use for it, but it is a bit of a mistrust though if webmasters don't correctly rate their site as mentioned above as an example of a con to this concept. in IE at least if a web content rating is enabled and a website does not have a PICS Label then parents can simply deny their child access to the site or it can give a warning.
I have found that VirtualBox is a perfect alternative to VMware's expensive Workstation product. Before a friend told me about VirtualBox I was using VMware's Server free product as to how Workstation was meant to be used and not as a server side virtualization solution as VMware expected. So as soon as I checked out VirtualBox I dumped the ever-so-getting bloated Server program suite. I did previously pirate Workstation a couple of years ago before the free Server got released and decided I would try to go legit at that time which made it easy since Server and Workstation were compatible with each other on virtual machine files. As for Workstation product its ~$200 price tag is just way too expensive for my taste.
Now I'm using VirtualBox and I really do like it a lot. It seems to even be less resource intensive than VMware's offerings. Now the question is has anybody tried, or even if possible, to convert a VMware virtual machine to a VirtualBox machine?
You had to replace 70 PSUs at the same time or rather short amount of time to one replacement after another? If so I would look into the UPS those systems were using (if one or so many was used) or have the power feed checked coming off the outlets you're using because that's just a damn near impossability to have so many PSUs die at once or you've had one really horrible batch.
2. If you'd read the next sentence right after your bold line, you'd notice they were talking about a kernel lock. Not a lock in memcached. Thats a totally valid reason to blame linux.
If you bothered to even read my entire post you would see that I acknowledged the fact they were talking about the kernel lock on the socket being the problem, but I also mentioned reason as to why it was happening (the socket is a shared resource: buffer management, FIFO, etc..) and realistically completely unavoidable in the kernel. Instead the only reasonable way to fix it is to use multiple sockets of which they did afterward to resolve the issue which should have been a no brainer to begin with.
My point in ranting about their post was the wording they use to make it sound like it was Linux's fault, not theirs since they just recently switched from a TCP to UDP packet exchange method and they did things that they shouldn't have done or wouldn't have done if they were still using TCP, but thought they would get away with it in UDP of which didn't make sense in this particular case. So, no, it wasn't memcached developers that did the half-ass'd changes, it was facebook's developers that did as talked about in their own article.
Is it just me or does the entire first part of the article scream "Linux is to blame!" when they were discussing about dealing with UDP network overhead issues in their software? For example:
We discovered that under load on Linux, UDP performance was downright horrible. This is caused by considerable lock contention on the UDP socket lock when transmitting through a single socket from multiple threads. Fixing the kernel by breaking up the lock is not easy. Instead, we used separate UDP sockets for transmitting replies (with one of these reply sockets per thread). With this change, we were able to deploy UDP without compromising performance on the backend.
I bolded the quote to show what their real problem was. They had a shit load of threads trying to use a single socket and of course there was huge overhead involved due to the mutex lock (Semaphore on kernel side) on a shared resource (the socket). So they blame Linux instead of them selves for such a half-ass implementation of sending out packets from multiple threads with a single socket. They would have gotten the same exact result if they tried it with a single TCP connection socket and attempted to have multiple threads firing off packets with that. If you want multiple threads sending out packets use multiple sockets... Wow what a concept!
Sorry for my ranting, but it just pisses me off when moron programmers blame the operating system for their own stupidity.
Anyway, haven't nearly all MMOs gone with using UDP internally of the game cluster network and TCP externally to reduce latency and network overhead? So this is nothing new to me.
I RMA'd my xbox 360 almost two years ago (three ring of death problem) and I've always used the console in the vertical position in the past, but the replacement console I received the drive won't open on it unless it is in the horizontal position. Apparently I got a replacement that uses a Hitachi drive.
I barely use the console, around ten hours a week which is roughly two hours each day, and I have noticed that it is starting to randomly lockup (no three ring of death yet) and it is out of warranty. I've had computers that I have personally built myself that cost less than the xbox 360 brand new (when it originally came out) and have ran them 24/7 for nearly seven years for both gaming and servers without starting to have problems. Yet a gaming console that I hardly ever use just loves to have problems every year.
And people say gaming on the computer is dead, what are they smoking? I'm not even going to go into the whole pay $60+ (console) for a game vs. $50 (PC), mods and new maps free (PC) vs. new maps, but no mods $8+ (console), plus online gaming free (PC) vs. $50/yr (console) (xbox 360 specific examples). Oops too late...
Yes it is unfair in games especially when being spawn camped and instantly getting blown to pieces over and over and over each time I spawn, its torture!
Oh, you're talking about a different kind of torture.
That's exactly what we want a car key to prevent our cell phone from working when we have a car accident and the damn thing screws up by continuing to prevent the cell phone from operating even when the car is dead. I can guarantee you this shit will happen due to retarded "solutions" like this if they ever see the light of day.
How about instances where you're a passenger in the vehicle and this very thing prevents you from using your cell phone (or insert possibly distracting devices here that driver shouldn't use, like mp3 players) from operating? I can see that happening too.
How about going back to the drawing board and come up with something that is actually practical.
So they could easily do the same thing and go commercial and non-freely available too without any rights for anybody to fork it later on. Hence why I'm not interested in using their forum for any serious site.
Funny thing is in my neighborhood you can frequently hear some birds chirping like they're reciting car alarm tones and the most hilarious part is they memorized the entire alarm cycle and will do so in the exact order on common alarms.
I'm sure birds in other places have done the same thing, but in order to find out requires actually going outside.:)
I know that because that is what I meant when I was replying to the grand parent about the scroll wheel which works exactly the same way as the mouse move actions (ball mice for example), but the operating system event identifiers are labeling scroll wheel actions as button events. That's what I was talking about.
Technically to call scroll wheel actions 'buttons' is like saying moving the mouse left, right, up, and down are buttons too. Now operating systems currently firing events to applications do map the mouse wheel actions as buttons (Microsoft Windows does, not sure how UNIX OSs 'label' them) since when the API was originally designed I assume the developers figured only thing that could possibly be added later on to the mouse was more buttons.
Mine has five. A Microsoft's IntelliMouse brand and it has the standard left and right buttons with a center/middle button built into the scroll wheel, and the (really useless) forward and backward buttons on the sides of which annoy me whenever I'm browsing and I hit one of them (backward button) accidentally during cases like posting on forums and haven't hit submit yet (lost EVERYTHING).
I remember back in 2002 when I bought the Linux version of Opera 5 because at the time Mozilla was a bloated resource whore and I needed a fast graphical web browser on a poor old 233MHz Pentium 2 box. I'm not exactly sure how much I paid for it, some where around $20 bucks I believe. I think still got the email receipt when I purchased it in one of my ancient email archives. I'll have to find it and post it sometime.
Sorry, got to correct the path to where exactly I got that quote from: System Properties -> Advanced -> Performance area, click Settings -> Advanced tab (on Windows XP, as for 2000 its the default tab).
Actually no the author was correct in Microsoft's Windows' terms. This is the exact text used in System Properties -> Advanced tab under Virtual memory: "A paging file is an an area on the hard disk that Windows uses as if it were RAM."
You might think well they said paging file not virtual memory, well click on Change button and you'll see the dialog pop up named "Virtual Memory" of which you can specify multiple paging files on multiple drives if you wanted to. Defaulted to a single paging file on the C:\ or boot drive. So blame Microsoft for the confusing use of virtual memory and paging file back and forth. I guess they mean by virtual memory as in the collection usage of paging files after the fact (for those situations where there's more than one paging file used, just like on Linux you can have more than one swap file in use).
Anyway, I too have seen Windows 2000 and XP just love to make heavy use of the paging file even though there is clearly enough physical memory available. Some friends of mine have even disabled Windows from using a paging file completely, at first you will get a warning about it, but other than that they have reported better system performance and no draw backs noticed since then. This is on systems with at least 3GB of RAM.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate replying to myself, but if anybody hasn't noticed that CmdrTaco has been trying to tell us something and by this article he has apparently given up:
;)
Alan Cox Leaves Red Hat
Posted by CmdrTaco on 10:11 AM -- Tuesday December 30 2008
from the bet-wherrever-he's-going-he'll-have-electricity-and-heat dept.
The Fight Over NASA's Future
Posted by CmdrTaco on 08:15 AM -- Tuesday December 30 2008
from the still-no-power-at-my-house dept.
Storm Causes AT&T Outage Across Midwest
Posted by CmdrTaco on 08:55 AM -- Monday December 29 2008
from the guess-who-this-includes dept.
So he's without power and worse no internet at his home, aww poor CmdrTaco. Somebody please think of the slashdot editors! Anybody got a spare generator and fuel?
Oh noes! What department of Slashdot did this article come from? Its the end of the world as we know it! ;)
Its not just Torque, but all other 3D game engines with multiplayer, especially at the very least Quake 2 era, does the exact same thing. Its common sense in 3D rendering when objects aren't visible to the camera you shouldn't feed them to the renderer to be processed and rendered since you're just wasting time. In this particular case its targeting specifically MMO games and not 3D games in general. It appears to be like the same crap that went on with the blackberry lawsuit a few years back about a wireless email patent.
There already has existed such a feature in Internet Explorer since at least 4.0 which uses W3C's PICS Labels. There has been the Internet Content Rating Association that has been around for a long time promoting that webmasters use PICS Labels to rate their own site and it is completely up to them on how to rate their own sites, of which has its pros and cons (such as webmasters intentionally misrating their site to be assholes).
I just checked firefox 3.0.5 and it doesn't even support PICS Labels, so anybody knows about the other web browsers? I personally have the web content rating disabled in IE because I don't want it, but I could parents might have a use for it, but it is a bit of a mistrust though if webmasters don't correctly rate their site as mentioned above as an example of a con to this concept. in IE at least if a web content rating is enabled and a website does not have a PICS Label then parents can simply deny their child access to the site or it can give a warning.
So I can finally drop a native windows install for gaming
Amen!
I have found that VirtualBox is a perfect alternative to VMware's expensive Workstation product. Before a friend told me about VirtualBox I was using VMware's Server free product as to how Workstation was meant to be used and not as a server side virtualization solution as VMware expected. So as soon as I checked out VirtualBox I dumped the ever-so-getting bloated Server program suite. I did previously pirate Workstation a couple of years ago before the free Server got released and decided I would try to go legit at that time which made it easy since Server and Workstation were compatible with each other on virtual machine files. As for Workstation product its ~$200 price tag is just way too expensive for my taste.
Now I'm using VirtualBox and I really do like it a lot. It seems to even be less resource intensive than VMware's offerings. Now the question is has anybody tried, or even if possible, to convert a VMware virtual machine to a VirtualBox machine?
You had to replace 70 PSUs at the same time or rather short amount of time to one replacement after another? If so I would look into the UPS those systems were using (if one or so many was used) or have the power feed checked coming off the outlets you're using because that's just a damn near impossability to have so many PSUs die at once or you've had one really horrible batch.
2. If you'd read the next sentence right after your bold line, you'd notice they were talking about a kernel lock. Not a lock in memcached. Thats a totally valid reason to blame linux.
If you bothered to even read my entire post you would see that I acknowledged the fact they were talking about the kernel lock on the socket being the problem, but I also mentioned reason as to why it was happening (the socket is a shared resource: buffer management, FIFO, etc..) and realistically completely unavoidable in the kernel. Instead the only reasonable way to fix it is to use multiple sockets of which they did afterward to resolve the issue which should have been a no brainer to begin with.
My point in ranting about their post was the wording they use to make it sound like it was Linux's fault, not theirs since they just recently switched from a TCP to UDP packet exchange method and they did things that they shouldn't have done or wouldn't have done if they were still using TCP, but thought they would get away with it in UDP of which didn't make sense in this particular case. So, no, it wasn't memcached developers that did the half-ass'd changes, it was facebook's developers that did as talked about in their own article.
We discovered that under load on Linux, UDP performance was downright horrible. This is caused by considerable lock contention on the UDP socket lock when transmitting through a single socket from multiple threads. Fixing the kernel by breaking up the lock is not easy. Instead, we used separate UDP sockets for transmitting replies (with one of these reply sockets per thread). With this change, we were able to deploy UDP without compromising performance on the backend.
I bolded the quote to show what their real problem was. They had a shit load of threads trying to use a single socket and of course there was huge overhead involved due to the mutex lock (Semaphore on kernel side) on a shared resource (the socket). So they blame Linux instead of them selves for such a half-ass implementation of sending out packets from multiple threads with a single socket. They would have gotten the same exact result if they tried it with a single TCP connection socket and attempted to have multiple threads firing off packets with that. If you want multiple threads sending out packets use multiple sockets... Wow what a concept!
Sorry for my ranting, but it just pisses me off when moron programmers blame the operating system for their own stupidity.
Anyway, haven't nearly all MMOs gone with using UDP internally of the game cluster network and TCP externally to reduce latency and network overhead? So this is nothing new to me.
I RMA'd my xbox 360 almost two years ago (three ring of death problem) and I've always used the console in the vertical position in the past, but the replacement console I received the drive won't open on it unless it is in the horizontal position. Apparently I got a replacement that uses a Hitachi drive.
I barely use the console, around ten hours a week which is roughly two hours each day, and I have noticed that it is starting to randomly lockup (no three ring of death yet) and it is out of warranty. I've had computers that I have personally built myself that cost less than the xbox 360 brand new (when it originally came out) and have ran them 24/7 for nearly seven years for both gaming and servers without starting to have problems. Yet a gaming console that I hardly ever use just loves to have problems every year.
And people say gaming on the computer is dead, what are they smoking? I'm not even going to go into the whole pay $60+ (console) for a game vs. $50 (PC), mods and new maps free (PC) vs. new maps, but no mods $8+ (console), plus online gaming free (PC) vs. $50/yr (console) (xbox 360 specific examples). Oops too late...
Yes it is unfair in games especially when being spawn camped and instantly getting blown to pieces over and over and over each time I spawn, its torture!
Oh, you're talking about a different kind of torture.
That's exactly what we want a car key to prevent our cell phone from working when we have a car accident and the damn thing screws up by continuing to prevent the cell phone from operating even when the car is dead. I can guarantee you this shit will happen due to retarded "solutions" like this if they ever see the light of day. How about instances where you're a passenger in the vehicle and this very thing prevents you from using your cell phone (or insert possibly distracting devices here that driver shouldn't use, like mp3 players) from operating? I can see that happening too.
How about going back to the drawing board and come up with something that is actually practical.
damnit... I meant to check Post Anonymously to make it ironic or something... damnit!
So you're saying by posting anonymous cowardly then I'm advocating abortion?
I almost feel as sorry as when I heard that god kills kittens when I masturbate... those poor kitties.... millions of poor dead kitties... :(
Note that SMF (Simple Machines Forum) isn't technically free open source software either. See their license for details: http://www.simplemachines.org/about/license.php.
So they could easily do the same thing and go commercial and non-freely available too without any rights for anybody to fork it later on. Hence why I'm not interested in using their forum for any serious site.
The baseline assumption is that the impactor formed in the Earth's trojans
That's one condom failure this planet is never going to forget about.
Funny thing is in my neighborhood you can frequently hear some birds chirping like they're reciting car alarm tones and the most hilarious part is they memorized the entire alarm cycle and will do so in the exact order on common alarms.
I'm sure birds in other places have done the same thing, but in order to find out requires actually going outside. :)
I know that because that is what I meant when I was replying to the grand parent about the scroll wheel which works exactly the same way as the mouse move actions (ball mice for example), but the operating system event identifiers are labeling scroll wheel actions as button events. That's what I was talking about.
Neo: If you're blue screened in the matrix, you die here?
Morpheus: The body cannot live without the mind
Technically to call scroll wheel actions 'buttons' is like saying moving the mouse left, right, up, and down are buttons too. Now operating systems currently firing events to applications do map the mouse wheel actions as buttons (Microsoft Windows does, not sure how UNIX OSs 'label' them) since when the API was originally designed I assume the developers figured only thing that could possibly be added later on to the mouse was more buttons.
Mine has five. A Microsoft's IntelliMouse brand and it has the standard left and right buttons with a center/middle button built into the scroll wheel, and the (really useless) forward and backward buttons on the sides of which annoy me whenever I'm browsing and I hit one of them (backward button) accidentally during cases like posting on forums and haven't hit submit yet (lost EVERYTHING).
Lisp! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rolls over and dies...
(added to make filter happy)
I remember back in 2002 when I bought the Linux version of Opera 5 because at the time Mozilla was a bloated resource whore and I needed a fast graphical web browser on a poor old 233MHz Pentium 2 box. I'm not exactly sure how much I paid for it, some where around $20 bucks I believe. I think still got the email receipt when I purchased it in one of my ancient email archives. I'll have to find it and post it sometime.
Sorry, got to correct the path to where exactly I got that quote from:
System Properties -> Advanced -> Performance area, click Settings -> Advanced tab (on Windows XP, as for 2000 its the default tab).
Actually no the author was correct in Microsoft's Windows' terms. This is the exact text used in System Properties -> Advanced tab under Virtual memory:
"A paging file is an an area on the hard disk that Windows uses as if it were RAM."
You might think well they said paging file not virtual memory, well click on Change button and you'll see the dialog pop up named "Virtual Memory" of which you can specify multiple paging files on multiple drives if you wanted to. Defaulted to a single paging file on the C:\ or boot drive. So blame Microsoft for the confusing use of virtual memory and paging file back and forth. I guess they mean by virtual memory as in the collection usage of paging files after the fact (for those situations where there's more than one paging file used, just like on Linux you can have more than one swap file in use).
Anyway, I too have seen Windows 2000 and XP just love to make heavy use of the paging file even though there is clearly enough physical memory available. Some friends of mine have even disabled Windows from using a paging file completely, at first you will get a warning about it, but other than that they have reported better system performance and no draw backs noticed since then. This is on systems with at least 3GB of RAM.