Technically, both 1 and 5 definitions include data striping per the original Patterson definitions. Too bad so many so-called experts don't realize that.
Combining RAID 0 with RAID 5 results in a single array with multiple, non-dedicated parity disks. Probably not what you are thinking at all.
You are assuming spindle seek which is nonexistent in the systems being discussed here. For non-spindle-sync'ed arrays, RAID 0, 1, and 3 do not have seek performance of a single drive. RAID 0 and 1 would not in any case if there block size is too large.
What is being hinted at here is simultaneous access. In applications where such access is common, data striping with large block sizes offers superior read performance compared to a single drive.
Tecnically, the only justification for hot-swap is a zero-downtime requirement. If downtime can be scheduled, then an online spare is all you need and spares are good in any case. The need for hotplug is consistently overstated.
RAID 5 is increasingly marginalized by the low cost of drives and high capacity they offer. RAID 1 *should* increasingly replace RAID 5 in the minds of people who understand the issues but sadly it does not. Many people believe that RAID 5 is simply "four better". Those same people also like hot-swap.
Never use RAID 3/4/5 when performance matters unless your workload is entirely reads. Switch your config to a 2+2 RAID 1 setup and your opinion might change. Of course, I would use such hardware in a home computer but that's a different issue.
No, you also halve the typical seek distance as well (assuming two drives). Files don't get bigger when capacity increases so disk performance naturally goes up with increasing capacity. RAID 0 offers that benefit regardless of simultaneous seeking.
Many do and many do not. Even for those that do, the controller has to have "opportunity" for optimization in order to do so. Booting basically doesn't provide much opportunity.
For controllers that don't do independent seeks, the reason they don't is because it's easier. For non-queuing interfaces (like IDE typically is) no opportunity for simulateous reads exists anyway. Writes will forcibly syncronize the spindles in any event.
You should be saying "availability" instead of "reliability". Redundant disks actually decrease reliability since they add parts that can fail. Redundancy improves the availability of the data in the event of a hardware failure.
Also, redundancy does not provide "fault protection" but rather "fault tolerance". Nothing in the extra hardware protects you from a fault. In fact, it increases your likelihood of experiencing one.
RAID 5 is the work of the devil. Disks are cheap so use plenty.
Then yes, I agree regarding DSOTM. A big problem with multichannel formats is that existing libraries will largely be unable to take advantage of them.
Looking at DVD, older movies are simply released in 2 channel stereo because that's all they've got. In the case of audio, there wouldn't be much point in doing that (over CD) but new material could be mastered with that in mind.
Headphones are a poor solution for enabling 3D bacause the brain loses its ability to detect subtle location cues using minute head movements. On the other hand, multichannel audio can be very good at 3D although 5.1 defines strictly a plane.
DVD capacity enables multichannel with high sample and bit rates while still allowing good run lengths.
Pink Floyd was notable for their interest and use of multichannel mixing in live performances and they always pushed the technical envelope. They would be at the top of my list to hear in such a format as well.
Because it's very useful. Users who manage their music this way are not dependent on how jukebox software operates (or even need it) and don't need playlists much either. Of course, such an organization doesn't preclude using those tools. I have yet to see a need to use databases that rely of ID3 tags but have been burned by software that interprets ID3 tags poorly (two albums of the same name merged).
The existence of alternative tools to organize data isn't an argument for not doing it yourself. I can't think of a task for which a traditional filesystem is better suited.
I'm not sure what your point is and it doesn't seem like there is one. I would suggest that any technology that enhances the listener's experience is worth pursuing even if ear-taught producers don't understand it.
If ever there was a band that would embrace new technologies (like multichannel) it would be Pink Floyd. If 5.1 were available at the time I promise you they would have released in it.
Once something "more natural" sounding comes along, then your 2 stereo-matched mics won't be the most natural sounding anymore. Your attitude is what causes technology to stagnate and old-schoolers to be pushed aside.
20 grand? Hell, I've got more than that in just my amps. I guess MidFi is good enough for some people.
You'll have a really hard time arguing that you need greater bit depths and sample rates in stereo but that extra channels are useless. Your brain is capable of processing far greater than two channels (which only defines a line segment BTW). The brain is capable of processing audio information throughout a sphere, si it's quite easy to see that more channels are far more useful than more bits per channel.
Multichannel audio would be tremendous except that existing material is largely not in multichannel format.
Current generation? The first generation units were good. Second generation ones had controls that didn't work as well and the current ones self-discharge completely in only a few days. I've owned all three generation and know several people with the current ones. They all do that. Mine only got 6 hours of playback on a full charge. Now it's in a new home.
As to why every player being compared to the iPod, it just seems that way here because there are so many Apple fans. My Karma is a better player than the iPod although it could be better as well. If I only used the iPod for an hour or two between charges I might like it better. For such short uses a flash players seems a better choice and its not hard to get ones with over 1GB these days.
If you're not into watching movies then a movie player's probably not for you.
If the iPod's so well thought out then why does it self-discharge in only two days? I'd prefer a real on-off switch and a multiple week standby time (along with better than 6 hours of play time) but I can get that with iPod alternatives. The iPod is pretty and nothing more.
Performs better than what? Better than a 80286 maybe. I don't think their power is as good as claimed either. I had a Crusoe powered notebook and it was easily the worst, slowest dog I've ever owned.
That and the fact that Transmeta's performance sucks so bad.
Centaur's and Transmeta's history really have very little in common. In Centaur's case, Glenn set out to do an x86 processor because it would be fun. He wanted to do a simple design managable be a small group using ideas he had developed over a long period of time. The relatively poor performance was a consequence of Glenn believing that superscalar and floating point are works of the devil.
Transmeta approached the problem with deep pockets and a technology that used software to translate the x86 instruction set. Their processors are an abomination and they have to buy into designs to sell any at all.
AFAIK, Glenn and his core group are the original creators of the concept of using an instruction decoder to feed x86 to a RISC core. This dates back to their days at IBM.
Top of the screen means that the mouse have to travel great distances on today's desktops compared to small ones that the original interface was designed for. "Easier to hit" is the argument for doing it but what difference does that make when you have to pick up the mouse half way through to get to it? Sure you can have excessive mouse acceleration but that doesn't contribute to making the mouse more accurate does it? Why is it that all macs on display don't have proper mouse acceleration if that's the proper solution to the big desktop problem? All demo macs I've tried feel like shit with sluggish mouses and menus that can't be reached easily.
Making the menus common across applications and using shortcuts are unrelated.
You mean like you stopped thinking? You think somehow that the menus should be in the upper left? Makes no intuitive sense to me. Why is it on the mac that no matter where an app is on the screen its menus are at the top of the screen. Talk about stupid, yet mac users still blindly believe that that's easier.
Incidently, not all written languages are read top-left to bottom-right. I prefer my menu bar on the left edge of the screen where it takes up less real estate.
Actually, it does. Just not across different processor lines.
Apple's message has actually been "don't pay attention to clock speeds since we suck at that". That's part of their problem of "we're stuck using a decade-old POS G4 while everyone else has a modern processor". Now that they have a modern processor themselves in the G5 they're much more agressive with their performance claims.
Once Intel bails on their crappy P4 concept clock rates will largely normalize. Pentium-M, Athlon64 and G5 all have clock rates that are more alike than different. That will be the future once the P4 is euthanized. The whole "clock rate doesn't matter" was invented by Apple as an excuse for being hopelessly behind and is now propped up by Intel and their stupid 30-stage pipelines. Clock rates do matter. There's only two ways to go faster---get more done per clock or get more clocks per second. Designers try to do both and marketers produce BS.
What's a 2.8 Opteron and how does SCSI320 imply the speed of the disk? Are there any disks that saturate a SCSI320 bus? I think not. Disk is irrelevent when you are waiting on the CPU anyway. And just how does one computer kick another's butt? There are various levels of enlightment apparently.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, both 1 and 5 definitions include data striping per the original Patterson definitions. Too bad so many so-called experts don't realize that.
Combining RAID 0 with RAID 5 results in a single array with multiple, non-dedicated parity disks. Probably not what you are thinking at all.
You are assuming spindle seek which is nonexistent in the systems being discussed here. For non-spindle-sync'ed arrays, RAID 0, 1, and 3 do not have seek performance of a single drive. RAID 0 and 1 would not in any case if there block size is too large.
What is being hinted at here is simultaneous access. In applications where such access is common, data striping with large block sizes offers superior read performance compared to a single drive.
Too bad 3Ware sucks so bad.
If you can boot from it then it's close enough. The rest is system efficiency. All RAID is software when you get right down to it.
Tecnically, the only justification for hot-swap is a zero-downtime requirement. If downtime can be scheduled, then an online spare is all you need and spares are good in any case. The need for hotplug is consistently overstated.
RAID 5 is increasingly marginalized by the low cost of drives and high capacity they offer. RAID 1 *should* increasingly replace RAID 5 in the minds of people who understand the issues but sadly it does not. Many people believe that RAID 5 is simply "four better". Those same people also like hot-swap.
Never use RAID 3/4/5 when performance matters unless your workload is entirely reads. Switch your config to a 2+2 RAID 1 setup and your opinion might change. Of course, I would use such hardware in a home computer but that's a different issue.
No, you also halve the typical seek distance as well (assuming two drives). Files don't get bigger when capacity increases so disk performance naturally goes up with increasing capacity. RAID 0 offers that benefit regardless of simultaneous seeking.
Many do and many do not. Even for those that do, the controller has to have "opportunity" for optimization in order to do so. Booting basically doesn't provide much opportunity.
For controllers that don't do independent seeks, the reason they don't is because it's easier. For non-queuing interfaces (like IDE typically is) no opportunity for simulateous reads exists anyway. Writes will forcibly syncronize the spindles in any event.
You should be saying "availability" instead of "reliability". Redundant disks actually decrease reliability since they add parts that can fail. Redundancy improves the availability of the data in the event of a hardware failure.
Also, redundancy does not provide "fault protection" but rather "fault tolerance". Nothing in the extra hardware protects you from a fault. In fact, it increases your likelihood of experiencing one.
RAID 5 is the work of the devil. Disks are cheap so use plenty.
Then yes, I agree regarding DSOTM. A big problem with multichannel formats is that existing libraries will largely be unable to take advantage of them.
Looking at DVD, older movies are simply released in 2 channel stereo because that's all they've got. In the case of audio, there wouldn't be much point in doing that (over CD) but new material could be mastered with that in mind.
Headphones are a poor solution for enabling 3D bacause the brain loses its ability to detect subtle location cues using minute head movements. On the other hand, multichannel audio can be very good at 3D although 5.1 defines strictly a plane.
DVD capacity enables multichannel with high sample and bit rates while still allowing good run lengths.
Pink Floyd was notable for their interest and use of multichannel mixing in live performances and they always pushed the technical envelope. They would be at the top of my list to hear in such a format as well.
Because it's very useful. Users who manage their music this way are not dependent on how jukebox software operates (or even need it) and don't need playlists much either. Of course, such an organization doesn't preclude using those tools. I have yet to see a need to use databases that rely of ID3 tags but have been burned by software that interprets ID3 tags poorly (two albums of the same name merged).
The existence of alternative tools to organize data isn't an argument for not doing it yourself. I can't think of a task for which a traditional filesystem is better suited.
Can't believe this is modded down. The poster couldn't have been more right. I work exactly this way.
I'm not sure what your point is and it doesn't seem like there is one. I would suggest that any technology that enhances the listener's experience is worth pursuing even if ear-taught producers don't understand it.
If ever there was a band that would embrace new technologies (like multichannel) it would be Pink Floyd. If 5.1 were available at the time I promise you they would have released in it.
Once something "more natural" sounding comes along, then your 2 stereo-matched mics won't be the most natural sounding anymore. Your attitude is what causes technology to stagnate and old-schoolers to be pushed aside.
I think you missed the point. You don't judge qualifications based on unsubstantiated bragging. That goes especially for Slashdot.
20 grand? Hell, I've got more than that in just my amps. I guess MidFi is good enough for some people.
You'll have a really hard time arguing that you need greater bit depths and sample rates in stereo but that extra channels are useless. Your brain is capable of processing far greater than two channels (which only defines a line segment BTW). The brain is capable of processing audio information throughout a sphere, si it's quite easy to see that more channels are far more useful than more bits per channel.
Multichannel audio would be tremendous except that existing material is largely not in multichannel format.
The only ones happy with digital music are the ones that own iPods? Ridiculous.
Ny thoughts exactly. School is as much about teaching you you how to think and learn as it is about filling your head with facts.
Finishing is a problem many bright people have. Once they conquer a challenge they're ready to move on. Discipline makes all the difference.
Current generation? The first generation units were good. Second generation ones had controls that didn't work as well and the current ones self-discharge completely in only a few days. I've owned all three generation and know several people with the current ones. They all do that. Mine only got 6 hours of playback on a full charge. Now it's in a new home.
As to why every player being compared to the iPod, it just seems that way here because there are so many Apple fans. My Karma is a better player than the iPod although it could be better as well. If I only used the iPod for an hour or two between charges I might like it better. For such short uses a flash players seems a better choice and its not hard to get ones with over 1GB these days.
If you're not into watching movies then a movie player's probably not for you.
If the iPod's so well thought out then why does it self-discharge in only two days? I'd prefer a real on-off switch and a multiple week standby time (along with better than 6 hours of play time) but I can get that with iPod alternatives. The iPod is pretty and nothing more.
Performs better than what? Better than a 80286 maybe. I don't think their power is as good as claimed either. I had a Crusoe powered notebook and it was easily the worst, slowest dog I've ever owned.
It's very hard and the few dozen engineers are really good.
That and the fact that Transmeta's performance sucks so bad.
Centaur's and Transmeta's history really have very little in common. In Centaur's case, Glenn set out to do an x86 processor because it would be fun. He wanted to do a simple design managable be a small group using ideas he had developed over a long period of time. The relatively poor performance was a consequence of Glenn believing that superscalar and floating point are works of the devil.
Transmeta approached the problem with deep pockets and a technology that used software to translate the x86 instruction set. Their processors are an abomination and they have to buy into designs to sell any at all.
AFAIK, Glenn and his core group are the original creators of the concept of using an instruction decoder to feed x86 to a RISC core. This dates back to their days at IBM.
top of the screen, not top of the window
Top of the screen means that the mouse have to travel great distances on today's desktops compared to small ones that the original interface was designed for. "Easier to hit" is the argument for doing it but what difference does that make when you have to pick up the mouse half way through to get to it? Sure you can have excessive mouse acceleration but that doesn't contribute to making the mouse more accurate does it? Why is it that all macs on display don't have proper mouse acceleration if that's the proper solution to the big desktop problem? All demo macs I've tried feel like shit with sluggish mouses and menus that can't be reached easily.
Making the menus common across applications and using shortcuts are unrelated.
You mean like you stopped thinking? You think somehow that the menus should be in the upper left? Makes no intuitive sense to me. Why is it on the mac that no matter where an app is on the screen its menus are at the top of the screen. Talk about stupid, yet mac users still blindly believe that that's easier.
Incidently, not all written languages are read top-left to bottom-right. I prefer my menu bar on the left edge of the screen where it takes up less real estate.
Actually, it does. Just not across different processor lines.
Apple's message has actually been "don't pay attention to clock speeds since we suck at that". That's part of their problem of "we're stuck using a decade-old POS G4 while everyone else has a modern processor". Now that they have a modern processor themselves in the G5 they're much more agressive with their performance claims.
Once Intel bails on their crappy P4 concept clock rates will largely normalize. Pentium-M, Athlon64 and G5 all have clock rates that are more alike than different. That will be the future once the P4 is euthanized. The whole "clock rate doesn't matter" was invented by Apple as an excuse for being hopelessly behind and is now propped up by Intel and their stupid 30-stage pipelines. Clock rates do matter. There's only two ways to go faster---get more done per clock or get more clocks per second. Designers try to do both and marketers produce BS.
What's a 2.8 Opteron and how does SCSI320 imply the speed of the disk? Are there any disks that saturate a SCSI320 bus? I think not. Disk is irrelevent when you are waiting on the CPU anyway. And just how does one computer kick another's butt? There are various levels of enlightment apparently.