I've seen other lefties write upside down, but I just turn the book/paper/whatever so it's on it's side. This results in me resting my arm on my elbow and rotating from there - which would result in me writing in an arc, but my hand adjusts for that to make a straight line.
However, I suspect there's a valid use here. It's probably not apparent, but I expect people will come up with something along these lines, if they haven't already.
Perhaps a new type of RAID, which incorporates s/w to make sure the data is in a state that is suitable for backup, or even do incremental backups. Clearly, such uses need significant additional functionality in s/w (or firmware), but I think the idea of a continuous RAID1-like backup is not inherently a bad one (and can work as a pure RAID1 in some situations).
yes, it gets complicated when you already have a raid...I wonder how it would affect things if you do a RAID1 over RAID10/80x4 + 320x1? I suspect it might be a speed problem?
not sure about the rebuild time, but you can probably avoid problems by having a 3 disk RAID1. or something...
yes, incrementabl backups are a problem, but I only really thought they were there because they reduced the amount of space needed on the backup media. same with journaling...
I have a Terabyte RAID5 (8*200GB). I would have trouble backing that up using RAID1 too....I suppose I could make each backup set 2x500GB. Not something I can afford, for sure....but for a desktop, with a single 100GB drive, I don't think this method has any significant problems. Perhaps it needs too much technical knowledge for an average user. It also kind of needs front loadable drives, else you'd be getting inside the machine too often.
Just tell them to switch the drive while the computer is powered off. That should be ok, no?
Use RAID1 and switch one of the drives out when you want to take a backup. Take the drive off site, just as you would a tape. Yes, don't drop the drive.
I guess he didn't use RAID1 then. Used in the right way, it would have saved his data... provided he notices that something is wrong before he switches his last 'backup drive' in as a mirror.
RAID1, with multiple mirror drives which are switched out in order to take the backup off site, would work just fine, and is preferable in many ways; particularly because the 'copy' is done continuously, so taking a backup is as simple as 'failing' one of the drives in the RAID1, and replacing it. The regeneration of the replacement drive could take a while, so that represents a failure point; but if you have RAID1 over 3 drives, then you still have RAID1 with two drives while the 3rd is rebuilding.
Well, yes. I agree with your 'negatives', particularly when applied to this instance. I wasn't trying to say it was suitable to this use, just that it isn't true to say that RAID isn't any good for backup. It is, and has some advantages to tape too.
I also accept that SCSI it the chosen i/f for businesses, but I would suggest that in may cases, SATA would be just fine - I know businesses that use SATA for RAID.
RAID isn't only for high availability. It can be for backup too. Just use RAID1 (mirror) and when you want to take a 'backup', fail the 'backup' drive, replace it with a different drive (it'll take a while to rebuild), then take the 'failed' drive off site (or whatever - same as you would a tape).
It's instant (no waiting for a tape to copy stuff), can be done at *any* time, and the backup drives are completely bootable (assuming it's the boot drive you've backedup).
In any case, is a 300GB drive really the sweet spot these days?
...but you're assuming some bad intend on the part of the persuader.
If the persuader thinks he is correct, and all he needs to do is convince someone, then is it really his responsibility to enforce some kind of, "Now that's just what I think. I'm certain I'm right, but you should come to your own opinion on this and vote your own way." Actually, that'd probably work better, since it displays some kind of balance and sensitivity.
> why would I put my capital into a business, especially a risky small business, if some dork that doesn't put in as much capital as I do gets just as much say in how the business is run....well, because you realise that other people may know better than you.
They've been using 'Silicon Graphics' for several years now. They use 'Silicon Graphics' for their graphics offerings, and 'SGI' for their non-graphics stuff.
> As to lower speed drives -- did you count the heads? Each is active at the same time. Yes, an individual i/o would complete faster with 10k or 15k spin, but the total throughput is based on the number of heads.
Total throughput, as I understand it, is based on :
1) rpm - the faster a disk rotates, the more data goes under the head(s) per second 2) number of heads/surfaces - more heads can read more data concurrently 3) data density - the higher the density, the more data travels under the head per second
I guess this perpendicular tech adds a dimension to the density part too, but I'm not really up on that.
However, I guess both Rugbys are probably as similar and so should be listed as one....or perhaps the two Rugbys are not as similar as I thought - I know one of them keeps stopping whenever they fall over (or something), and the person pushes the ball back with their foot. I would look it up in Wikipedia, but I live in China:(
Slashdot Mirror
Does being 'for sale' cound as being sold?
To be sold actually requires a buyer...do we know if it was actually sold?
...and it's not like he can't do that with the iPod too.
That's not true. I know very smart people still working for SGI.
In that case, Murpy's point is moot, no?
I've seen other lefties write upside down, but I just turn the book/paper/whatever so it's on it's side. This results in me resting my arm on my elbow and rotating from there - which would result in me writing in an arc, but my hand adjusts for that to make a straight line.
It's never been a problem for me.
Perhaps you're right.
However, I suspect there's a valid use here. It's probably not apparent, but I expect people will come up with something along these lines, if they haven't already.
Perhaps a new type of RAID, which incorporates s/w to make sure the data is in a state that is suitable for backup, or even do incremental backups. Clearly, such uses need significant additional functionality in s/w (or firmware), but I think the idea of a continuous RAID1-like backup is not inherently a bad one (and can work as a pure RAID1 in some situations).
yes, it gets complicated when you already have a raid...I wonder how it would affect things if you do a RAID1 over RAID10/80x4 + 320x1? I suspect it might be a speed problem?
...but for a desktop, with a single 100GB drive, I don't think this method has any significant problems. Perhaps it needs too much technical knowledge for an average user. It also kind of needs front loadable drives, else you'd be getting inside the machine too often.
not sure about the rebuild time, but you can probably avoid problems by having a 3 disk RAID1. or something...
yes, incrementabl backups are a problem, but I only really thought they were there because they reduced the amount of space needed on the backup media. same with journaling...
I have a Terabyte RAID5 (8*200GB). I would have trouble backing that up using RAID1 too....I suppose I could make each backup set 2x500GB. Not something I can afford, for sure.
Just tell them to switch the drive while the computer is powered off. That should be ok, no?
Why can't you can use exactly the same methods as for any other backup method? Take it to single user/safe mode, if you must. Flush caches. Whatever.
Use RAID1 and switch one of the drives out when you want to take a backup. Take the drive off site, just as you would a tape. Yes, don't drop the drive.
I guess he didn't use RAID1 then. Used in the right way, it would have saved his data ... provided he notices that something is wrong before he switches his last 'backup drive' in as a mirror.
RAID1, with multiple mirror drives which are switched out in order to take the backup off site, would work just fine, and is preferable in many ways; particularly because the 'copy' is done continuously, so taking a backup is as simple as 'failing' one of the drives in the RAID1, and replacing it. The regeneration of the replacement drive could take a while, so that represents a failure point; but if you have RAID1 over 3 drives, then you still have RAID1 with two drives while the 3rd is rebuilding.
Well, yes. I agree with your 'negatives', particularly when applied to this instance. I wasn't trying to say it was suitable to this use, just that it isn't true to say that RAID isn't any good for backup. It is, and has some advantages to tape too.
I also accept that SCSI it the chosen i/f for businesses, but I would suggest that in may cases, SATA would be just fine - I know businesses that use SATA for RAID.
RAID isn't only for high availability. It can be for backup too. Just use RAID1 (mirror) and when you want to take a 'backup', fail the 'backup' drive, replace it with a different drive (it'll take a while to rebuild), then take the 'failed' drive off site (or whatever - same as you would a tape).
It's instant (no waiting for a tape to copy stuff), can be done at *any* time, and the backup drives are completely bootable (assuming it's the boot drive you've backedup).
In any case, is a 300GB drive really the sweet spot these days?
...but you're assuming some bad intend on the part of the persuader.
If the persuader thinks he is correct, and all he needs to do is convince someone, then is it really his responsibility to enforce some kind of, "Now that's just what I think. I'm certain I'm right, but you should come to your own opinion on this and vote your own way." Actually, that'd probably work better, since it displays some kind of balance and sensitivity.
You're blaming the persuasive person for the gulibility of the persuaded.
> why would I put my capital into a business, especially a risky small business, if some dork that doesn't put in as much capital as I do gets just as much say in how the business is run. ...well, because you realise that other people may know better than you.
Reminds me of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
I recently bought a Huawei CDMA card. It worked 'out of the box' with Ubuntu. The USB version also worked first time.
Of course, we had to figure out the wvdial config file to make it do anything, but that didn't take long.
They've been using 'Silicon Graphics' for several years now. They use 'Silicon Graphics' for their graphics offerings, and 'SGI' for their non-graphics stuff.
http://www.sgi.com/products/visualization/
> As to lower speed drives -- did you count the heads? Each is active at the same time. Yes, an individual i/o would complete faster with 10k or 15k spin, but the total throughput is based on the number of heads.
Total throughput, as I understand it, is based on :
1) rpm - the faster a disk rotates, the more data goes under the head(s) per second
2) number of heads/surfaces - more heads can read more data concurrently
3) data density - the higher the density, the more data travels under the head per second
I guess this perpendicular tech adds a dimension to the density part too, but I'm not really up on that.
oops...http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid =06/07/11/209229
Some guy claims even a DVD can hold 50TB :
You know what they say about big/small feet?
Well, actually, I don't know for sure, but I figured it was 'small feet == small member' and, correspondingly, 'large feet == large member'.
Assuming large feet are better for swimming (think flippers/fins), I'd say they kind of work against each other, at least to some degree.
Of course, if I'm wrong...
> ... I found out that many swimmers do in fact adjust their member ...
"I *found*"????
How exactly to you *find* such, er, "interesting" facts?
Ah. I probably got them muddled up....which is the one where they stop all the time and push it behind them with one foot?
I kind of included Canada in '(north) America'.
...or perhaps the two Rugbys are not as similar as I thought - I know one of them keeps stopping whenever they fall over (or something), and the person pushes the ball back with their foot. I would look it up in Wikipedia, but I live in China :(
However, I guess both Rugbys are probably as similar and so should be listed as one.