Not Oracle, but one of the other free/cheap/lean DBs.
Re:Because of Oracle Database
on
Oracle Buys Sun
·
· Score: 1
I have a feeling that MySQL will be forked soon. The original will stagnate and the fork will die because it doesn't have Multi-processor support. It will be a slow painful death, drawn out by the following/momentum/install base of MySQL.
So if you accidentally pipe a binary file to the semiconductor-squirting inkjet printer and lightning strikes at the right moment, does the printer produce a self-aware circuit?
Need more input......
Think latency. We're talking about a cable / rope, not a diamond-hard pole which you can just move. You can move the bottom point, but this will merely cause the rope to flex and bend, and it will take who knows how long before this change propagates high enough up the line to make a real difference at the altitude of the offending/kamikazi satelite. Remember that moving a sea-based platform is possibly even slower than it is to actually move a sea drilling rig, which is much slower than a ship.
It's not the performance. It's not the price. It's not the quality of the systems (I've disassembled a bunch of lower-end Suns and quite frankly I've seen better built systems from beigebox clonehouses)
What model system was that pray tell?
and it's not because of any brilliant engineering on Sun's part (Sun reserves their good engineering for their larger systems, which is why they pretty much own the market for NetBackup media servers and NetBackup master servers).
Only system I know of with less than brilliant engineering is the Ultra 5 on my desktop, and that is basically a PC with a Sun chip in it, and even it is not too bad.
You must give up your low/. ID and re-register with a high number immediately.
The X??00 servers supports only 4GB (and 16 GB ram for the X4?00) - hardly a replacement for the v20z / v40z with 16 / 32 GB ram support respectively. Big databases are more memory constrained.
RAID 5 in hardware needs to do a pretty bit more than a few XORs to calculate parity.
The process involves first a read of the stripe after determining what blocks on the disks is to be affected, into a buffer, then it needs to know which disk (column) contains the parity bits for the current operation, then it updates the data in the buffer, then re-calculate the parity bits, and then write back the whole stripe.
Some of this is avoided if the size of the data to be written matches the stripe width and aligns with it, but it still needs to do a whole lot more than just calculate parity. And if the data does not align with the raid stripe, the process may need to be repeated multiple times (for each affected stripe row), so the picture becomes much worse as the controller must also break up the request into parts which does align with the stripe!
Well, for lots of us who were born before the 80s (or the 70s for that matter), we've been using vi or emacs for so long that...
And here I thought ed was the de-facto editor on all unices (It sais so in the man page):p
I can't believe the number of people I meet who don't know how to edit a Bash command line
I must be getting stupider and stupider... I put set -o vi in my.bashrc (when there is no ksh arround... how do you search for a string in your bash command history using default emacs-ish keys? And how do you tell it you will be replacing the next N words with some input text? Is that to the beginning of the N+1th word or to the end of the Nth word?)
This will probably reveal just how third-world my country is, but at the same time that motherboards and other computer parts get used by more people from more backgrounds than just a limited set of people with all-new-everything.
My old PDA is fine for what I need, and has got only a serial interface, hence I'd like my next computer to include a serial port:-)
My old Printer is just fine. Only reason I'll some day replace it is if the cartridges become hard to find. It is still connected via a parallel cable (though admittedly only because I am too... peny-wize to go buy an extra USB cable).
My mouse I have connected to the PS/2 port using a little converter because it feels more responsive in games compared to being connected to the USB port. While this is not a big factor for me, I suppose I'd like a PS/2 port on a new motherboard for the mouse.
My AT-type keyboard is connected to a PS/2 port because when I got my new (at the time) motherboard, a DIN5-to-PS/2 converter was cheaper than a new keyboard.
Only component I have on USB is my brand-spanking-new digital camera!
Granted, I am in the process of buying a nice new computer, and replacing everything including my 15 year old keyboard, to be based on a Gigabyte 3D1/GA-K8NXP-SLI combo. I do think USB is what Serial always wanted to be. A cheap, easy-to-connect, general-purpose standard, with the intelligence and expandability added that plain old serial lacked. However, I'll still be wanting a serial port for my PDA...:-)
I suspect that the difference is that MS realy does kill the competition by integrating a browser for free.
Nvidea for example does not (commit anti-trust) because there is no drive from the public to oust their (imho good enough for a desktop) RAID controllers, for example, or on the other end of the spectrum, people who care about better sound quality will go out and buy another sound card in any case.
We, the public, prefer the mass-produced chips because they are cheaper. Nvidea (as one of the biggest motherboard chipset makers) does not give their chipset to motherboard manufacturers for free (that I know of). Because of the popularity of these chipsets, they get wide market penetration, and hence come down in manufacturing cost, which is a benefit to us all.
In any case, Intel (as a chipset manufacturer) needs a bit of competition too. Or maybe intel is the unfair competitor as they build both the CPU and the motherboard. Hmmmm - food for thought...
More-over, these all-in-one motherboard makers still use a chipset from a different vendor (Eg Nvidea). This is different from the MS uses and MS browser.
Here is a little Unix gem - use when viewing logs and other output where lines are longer than the terminal window is wide:
some-command | sed G | less
Use of the "sed G" above adds an open line after every line from the output of some-command (The Yank space is empty by default). Obviously by placing something else in the yank-space you can substitute that in stead of an empty line.
This is a "tip" I picked up somewhere, can not remember where any more, and out of the thousands of tips I've read in my life, one of only a handfull that was actually new and also usefull! (I find that happens very seldomly)
setting the shell options to stun. Or at least daze.
I've been looking for a way to get that option turned off. Whenever a Windows user, like in an expirt (qv) or sumfin walks into my cubicle and sees me performing an online disk re-layout in two quick commands, the effect hits them immediately.
Thank goodness I'm immune to it. Now where is my mouse so I can press the submit button below.... nevermind... TAB-TAB-Space
Hmmmm, I have also now switched to using a multi-line prompt. I am still of two minds whether I want to use this in all cases, but it is nice on systems where I have scroll-back and window resizing etc. Back in the days of 80x24 I would never have done this!
I put an open line as the first line in my prompt, followed by the full cwd, and finally a user@host line. I have also started to change the color of my prompt - but only to make it a shade brighter than normal output. I have a bad habit of not reading every line of output, so I find my self searching for my previous prompt line all too often. Having it stand out is therefore quite nice.
Unfortunately, just about anyone calls themselves an engineer these days.
I agree with you, so I have to add a me-too post. (with a twist of course)
I would want to add that it isn't alwyas the (poor) non-engineer's fault. At a previous job I worked as a Windows Administrator (yes, pitty me, but the pull of the dark side was strong and I was young and innocent. Well, young). Anyways, I had the title of "Systems Engineer"!
Nowadays I am a Unix systems admin (having mended my ways-n-all), with the title of "Systems Programmer"... go figure.
Agreed (if you have at least 4 CPUs in the domain). But there is even more beauty to the E10k: This 10-year-old server supports online replacement of processors, memory banks, IO-cards, etc. In similar vein, one can add memory and CPUs and IO controllers to a system without shutting it down. Granted some of this functionality is broken in earlier versions of Solaris, but there is one more aspect to this. Sun still ships new E10ks today (I believe for another 2 weeks). Why? Because they just work, and they work well. Customers want them, and there is a big market for refurbished E10ks!
P.S. I do believe Sun did more than just re-badge the Cray. US-II support, support for SBUS and PCI, etc. (Though I stand to be corrected on this point). In any case, when the E10k started to ship, it was far ahead of anything else available, excluding some legacy systems like the mainframe and the AS400.
Our world is such that we commonly work with numbers between positive and negative 2 billion. Everything from monetary amounts to the number of records in a database, from distance between places to weights and quantities - we generally work with numbers well within the 32-bit range.
When 32-bit processing came around we had a general and common need to process numbers bigger than what could be handled by 16-bit CPU registers, e.g. numbers bigger than 65,000. But this need for large number processing have stayed the same over time, and so it will not assist to drive the development of 64-bit CPUs!
There is also the ability of the CPU to do more accurate floating point mathematics. This, as well as the need to work with very big numbers, play a role only in engineering and science applications, and to a smaller degree in games.
Therefore the need for 64-bit processing is driven more by the need for addressing more memory than by the need for faster processing of very big or very small numbers.
We need 64-bit processing where the data width inherent in the problem exceeds the (32-bit) processor's registers' width. (Actually this is true for database memory requirements and for games' number crunching and engineering and scientific applications too... these applications gain from 64-bit processing either because the problem lends itself to a very large data set, eg a large memory requirement or else because of a requirement to process numbers which are wider than the CPU's register width.)
It is not generally possible to recompile or even rewrite an existing problem to "require" bigger registers or memory space. However if a problem already requires big numbers to be processed and had been "optimised" to fit into 32-bit world, then the program can be (un/re)"optimised" to utilise the full 64-bit processing capability by removing these initial optimisations, such as where 64-bit operations have been broken into multiple 32-bit operations.
In fact, someone (Adrian Cockroft) very aptly said
http://www.sun.com/sun-on-net/itworld/UIR951101per f.html
64-bit CPUs increase application performance despite the 64-bit nature of these CPUs . 64-bit instructions and, in particular, 64-bit memory address pointers imposes a big additional load on memory, caching and the CPU, so if you're not using those extra bits, compiling to 64-bit actually makes the application execute slower!
To test this, take your favourite compiler and compile your favourite utility program to both 32 and 64-bit executables and run both and compare the timings on your trusted Althlon64 or Sun ULTRA 5 workstation.:-)
Unless the program either processes lots of large numbers or utilise more than 4GB ram, the 32-bit version will run faster.
A program which does not process huge numbers and which does not process numbers bigger than 32-bits will run faster when compiled to a 32-bit executable, even on a 64-bit CPU. There is also the bigger 64-bit executable to load and instructions to move between memory and CPU.
Let me add something to this - as a pojnt in case, all the general purpose utils on Solaris 7, 8, 9 and 10 come as 32-bit executables by default (Some 64-bit utils are available, but not in your path by default). This is probably because the memory bandwidth overhead (read: Wasted memory bandwidth) due to 64-bit executables needing to transfer double the amount of bits from memory to find out where pointers point, even if it is just to point to next next memory address! (Eg pointers are bigger because they can address more memory, even if you don't need it)
A very simple comparisson will prove this, eg
timex
Slashdot Mirror
Not Oracle, but one of the other free/cheap/lean DBs.
I have a feeling that MySQL will be forked soon. The original will stagnate and the fork will die because it doesn't have Multi-processor support. It will be a slow painful death, drawn out by the following/momentum/install base of MySQL.
UDP is connectionless - the ability of a firewall to do stateful filtering is irrelevant as far as UDP packets are concerned.
So if you accidentally pipe a binary file to the semiconductor-squirting inkjet printer and lightning strikes at the right moment, does the printer produce a self-aware circuit? Need more input......
Think latency. We're talking about a cable / rope, not a diamond-hard pole which you can just move. You can move the bottom point, but this will merely cause the rope to flex and bend, and it will take who knows how long before this change propagates high enough up the line to make a real difference at the altitude of the offending/kamikazi satelite. Remember that moving a sea-based platform is possibly even slower than it is to actually move a sea drilling rig, which is much slower than a ship.
It's not the performance. It's not the price. It's not the quality of the systems (I've disassembled a bunch of lower-end Suns and quite frankly I've seen better built systems from beigebox clonehouses)
/. ID and re-register with a high number immediately.
What model system was that pray tell?
and it's not because of any brilliant engineering on Sun's part (Sun reserves their good engineering for their larger systems, which is why they pretty much own the market for NetBackup media servers and NetBackup master servers).
Only system I know of with less than brilliant engineering is the Ultra 5 on my desktop, and that is basically a PC with a Sun chip in it, and even it is not too bad.
You must give up your low
The X??00 servers supports only 4GB (and 16 GB ram for the X4?00) - hardly a replacement for the v20z / v40z with 16 / 32 GB ram support respectively. Big databases are more memory constrained.
It aims (and claims) to eliminate or reduce memory latencies, not iowait.
There is no internal HW raid.
Hmmm. I find Sun's lack of a 16-way product to be a bit of an ommission ... Weird.
We used to have Mac vs PC, Linux vs Windows, Star Wars vs Star Trek ... Now we have SCSI vs SATA wars!
RAID 5 in hardware needs to do a pretty bit more than a few XORs to calculate parity.
The process involves first a read of the stripe after determining what blocks on the disks is to be affected, into a buffer, then it needs to know which disk (column) contains the parity bits for the current operation, then it updates the data in the buffer, then re-calculate the parity bits, and then write back the whole stripe.
Some of this is avoided if the size of the data to be written matches the stripe width and aligns with it, but it still needs to do a whole lot more than just calculate parity. And if the data does not align with the raid stripe, the process may need to be repeated multiple times (for each affected stripe row), so the picture becomes much worse as the controller must also break up the request into parts which does align with the stripe!
Only similarity is in the abbreviation.
Well, for lots of us who were born before the 80s (or the 70s for that matter), we've been using vi or emacs for so long that ...
:p
... I put set -o vi in my .bashrc (when there is no ksh arround ... how do you search for a string in your bash command history using default emacs-ish keys? And how do you tell it you will be replacing the next N words with some input text? Is that to the beginning of the N+1th word or to the end of the Nth word?)
And here I thought ed was the de-facto editor on all unices (It sais so in the man page)
I can't believe the number of people I meet who don't know how to edit a Bash command line
I must be getting stupider and stupider
I recommend a bowl of baked beans and some boiled cabbage.
This will probably reveal just how third-world my country is, but at the same time that motherboards and other computer parts get used by more people from more backgrounds than just a limited set of people with all-new-everything.
:-)
... peny-wize to go buy an extra USB cable).
... :-)
My old PDA is fine for what I need, and has got only a serial interface, hence I'd like my next computer to include a serial port
My old Printer is just fine. Only reason I'll some day replace it is if the cartridges become hard to find. It is still connected via a parallel cable (though admittedly only because I am too
My mouse I have connected to the PS/2 port using a little converter because it feels more responsive in games compared to being connected to the USB port. While this is not a big factor for me, I suppose I'd like a PS/2 port on a new motherboard for the mouse.
My AT-type keyboard is connected to a PS/2 port because when I got my new (at the time) motherboard, a DIN5-to-PS/2 converter was cheaper than a new keyboard.
Only component I have on USB is my brand-spanking-new digital camera!
Granted, I am in the process of buying a nice new computer, and replacing everything including my 15 year old keyboard, to be based on a Gigabyte 3D1/GA-K8NXP-SLI combo. I do think USB is what Serial always wanted to be. A cheap, easy-to-connect, general-purpose standard, with the intelligence and expandability added that plain old serial lacked. However, I'll still be wanting a serial port for my PDA
Interesting.
I suspect that the difference is that MS realy does kill the competition by integrating a browser for free.
Nvidea for example does not (commit anti-trust) because there is no drive from the public to oust their (imho good enough for a desktop) RAID controllers, for example, or on the other end of the spectrum, people who care about better sound quality will go out and buy another sound card in any case.
We, the public, prefer the mass-produced chips because they are cheaper. Nvidea (as one of the biggest motherboard chipset makers) does not give their chipset to motherboard manufacturers for free (that I know of). Because of the popularity of these chipsets, they get wide market penetration, and hence come down in manufacturing cost, which is a benefit to us all.
In any case, Intel (as a chipset manufacturer) needs a bit of competition too. Or maybe intel is the unfair competitor as they build both the CPU and the motherboard. Hmmmm - food for thought...
More-over, these all-in-one motherboard makers still use a chipset from a different vendor (Eg Nvidea). This is different from the MS uses and MS browser.
Use of the "sed G" above adds an open line after every line from the output of some-command (The Yank space is empty by default). Obviously by placing something else in the yank-space you can substitute that in stead of an empty line.
This is a "tip" I picked up somewhere, can not remember where any more, and out of the thousands of tips I've read in my life, one of only a handfull that was actually new and also usefull! (I find that happens very seldomly)
Ha ha ha! Very well put! How did he get such a low UID?
Somebody mode the parent up!
setting the shell options to stun. Or at least daze.
.... nevermind ... TAB-TAB-Space
I've been looking for a way to get that option turned off. Whenever a Windows user, like in an expirt (qv) or sumfin walks into my cubicle and sees me performing an online disk re-layout in two quick commands, the effect hits them immediately.
Thank goodness I'm immune to it. Now where is my mouse so I can press the submit button below
Erm, besides "mentally", what other ways have you come across?
Hmmmm, I have also now switched to using a multi-line prompt. I am still of two minds whether I want to use this in all cases, but it is nice on systems where I have scroll-back and window resizing etc. Back in the days of 80x24 I would never have done this!
I put an open line as the first line in my prompt, followed by the full cwd, and finally a user@host line. I have also started to change the color of my prompt - but only to make it a shade brighter than normal output. I have a bad habit of not reading every line of output, so I find my self searching for my previous prompt line all too often. Having it stand out is therefore quite nice.
For newbies, I recommend turn on no-clobber.
Unfortunately, just about anyone calls themselves an engineer these days.
... go figure.
I agree with you, so I have to add a me-too post. (with a twist of course)
I would want to add that it isn't alwyas the (poor) non-engineer's fault. At a previous job I worked as a Windows Administrator (yes, pitty me, but the pull of the dark side was strong and I was young and innocent. Well, young). Anyways, I had the title of "Systems Engineer"!
Nowadays I am a Unix systems admin (having mended my ways-n-all), with the title of "Systems Programmer"
Agreed (if you have at least 4 CPUs in the domain). But there is even more beauty to the E10k: This 10-year-old server supports online replacement of processors, memory banks, IO-cards, etc. In similar vein, one can add memory and CPUs and IO controllers to a system without shutting it down. Granted some of this functionality is broken in earlier versions of Solaris, but there is one more aspect to this. Sun still ships new E10ks today (I believe for another 2 weeks). Why? Because they just work, and they work well. Customers want them, and there is a big market for refurbished E10ks!
P.S. I do believe Sun did more than just re-badge the Cray. US-II support, support for SBUS and PCI, etc. (Though I stand to be corrected on this point). In any case, when the E10k started to ship, it was far ahead of anything else available, excluding some legacy systems like the mainframe and the AS400.
I will quote in its entirety a post I put on a http://forums.hexus.net/showthread.php?t=23425 Hexus forum a few months ago:
... these applications gain from 64-bit processing either because the problem lends itself to a very large data set, eg a large memory requirement or else because of a requirement to process numbers which are wider than the CPU's register width.)
:-)
Our world is such that we commonly work with numbers between positive and negative 2 billion. Everything from monetary amounts to the number of records in a database, from distance between places to weights and quantities - we generally work with numbers well within the 32-bit range.
When 32-bit processing came around we had a general and common need to process numbers bigger than what could be handled by 16-bit CPU registers, e.g. numbers bigger than 65,000. But this need for large number processing have stayed the same over time, and so it will not assist to drive the development of 64-bit CPUs!
There is also the ability of the CPU to do more accurate floating point mathematics. This, as well as the need to work with very big numbers, play a role only in engineering and science applications, and to a smaller degree in games.
Therefore the need for 64-bit processing is driven more by the need for addressing more memory than by the need for faster processing of very big or very small numbers.
We need 64-bit processing where the data width inherent in the problem exceeds the (32-bit) processor's registers' width. (Actually this is true for database memory requirements and for games' number crunching and engineering and scientific applications too
It is not generally possible to recompile or even rewrite an existing problem to "require" bigger registers or memory space. However if a problem already requires big numbers to be processed and had been "optimised" to fit into 32-bit world, then the program can be (un/re)"optimised" to utilise the full 64-bit processing capability by removing these initial optimisations, such as where 64-bit operations have been broken into multiple 32-bit operations.
In fact, someone (Adrian Cockroft) very aptly said http://www.sun.com/sun-on-net/itworld/UIR951101per f.html 64-bit CPUs increase application performance despite the 64-bit nature of these CPUs . 64-bit instructions and, in particular, 64-bit memory address pointers imposes a big additional load on memory, caching and the CPU, so if you're not using those extra bits, compiling to 64-bit actually makes the application execute slower!
To test this, take your favourite compiler and compile your favourite utility program to both 32 and 64-bit executables and run both and compare the timings on your trusted Althlon64 or Sun ULTRA 5 workstation.
Unless the program either processes lots of large numbers or utilise more than 4GB ram, the 32-bit version will run faster.
A program which does not process huge numbers and which does not process numbers bigger than 32-bits will run faster when compiled to a 32-bit executable, even on a 64-bit CPU. There is also the bigger 64-bit executable to load and instructions to move between memory and CPU.
Let me add something to this - as a pojnt in case, all the general purpose utils on Solaris 7, 8, 9 and 10 come as 32-bit executables by default (Some 64-bit utils are available, but not in your path by default). This is probably because the memory bandwidth overhead (read: Wasted memory bandwidth) due to 64-bit executables needing to transfer double the amount of bits from memory to find out where pointers point, even if it is just to point to next next memory address! (Eg pointers are bigger because they can address more memory, even if you don't need it)
A very simple comparisson will prove this, eg
timex