right that's because partnering up with linux is like becoming an MS partner, it's the death knell for your company. Yeah. That's why all successful hardware vendors only release drivers for BeOS and Plan9.
It may not be something you would like to do to your servers at work, but I installed coreboot (formerly LinuxBIOS) on my server at home, and it takes 6 seconds to hand over to the operating system (the bootloader is in ROM).
You may also want to try Vimperator, a Firefox extension for controlling the browser entirely with the keyboard, with vi-like keybindings. It's not perfect, but I find it much more convenient than the standard mouse-driver interface.
The Advanced Routing HOWTO from TLDP. In particular, sections 9, 9.5 and 9.5.5. Note that it was outdated even when I read it, which was several years ago (you haven't had to patch your kernel to get HTB since 2.4.20 or so).
I don't know about his WRT router, but I used to be using HTB shaping on a Pentium II 400 MHz box, without ever seeing it take even so much as a percent of its CPU cycles.
It sounds like you're doing it wrong. I've set up HTB shaping with tc on Linux as well, and it works very well. Flawlessly, I might even say.
There are two key points:
You absolutely need to limit to absolute maximum outbound bandwidth (on the root qdisc, in other words) to a value slightly below your real outbound bandwidth. This point is critical. Without it, there's no point in even trying to shape the traffic, since the modem will start buffering.
It helps very greatly if it is possible for you to classify torrent traffic into a HTB class with lower priority than whatever class the packets you care about go into. There are several possibilities for going about that:
If the program in question supports setting the DSCP field of the packets (where the TOS field went previously), you can use iptables with -m dscp to set the fwmark on them to classify more precisely (remember to clear the DSCP field before sending the packets out from your network, though).
If a program running locally on the router does not support setting DSCP values, you can create a group, set the program to SGID to that group, and use iptables with -m owner --gid-owner $GROUPNAME to set the fwmark. The same method can be used to set the DSCP field on packets from a Linux machine other than the router.
For reference, here is the script that I use to set up the traffic shaping. It might prove useful to you.
tc qdisc add dev wan root handle 1: htb default 122 # Root tc class add dev wan parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 600kbit ceil 600kbit cburst 1500 burst 50kb # TOS Min-Delay tc class add dev wan parent 1:1 classid 1:11 htb prio 0 rate 25kbit ceil 50kbit burst 10kbit # Bulk tc class add dev wan parent 1:1 classid 1:12 htb prio 1 rate 250kbit ceil 600kbit burst 10kb # HTTP tc class add dev wan parent 1:1 classid 1:13 htb prio 1 rate 125kbit ceil 600kbit burst 50kb # FTP (Needs iptables support) tc class add dev wan parent 1:1 classid 1:14 htb prio 1 rate 175kbit ceil 600kbit burst 10kb # Low priority tc class add dev wan parent 1:1 classid 1:15 htb prio 2 rate 25kbit ceil 500kbit burst 10kb # TOS Max-Bandwidth tc class add dev wan parent 1:12 classid 1:121 htb prio 1 rate 175kbit ceil 600kbit # Default tc class add dev wan parent 1:12 classid 1:122 htb prio 1 rate 75kbit ceil 600kbit # TOS Min-Cost (Needs iptables support) tc class add dev wan parent 1:15 classid 1:151 htb prio 2 rate 5kbit ceil 400kbit burst 10kb # Auxiliary low prio bands tc class add dev wan parent 1:15 classid 1:152 htb prio 2 rate 5kbit ceil 400kbit burst 10kb tc class add dev wan parent 1:15 classid 1:153 htb prio 2 rate 5kbit ceil 400kbit burst 10kb tc class add dev wan parent 1:15 classid 1:154 htb prio 2 rate 5kbit ceil 400kbit burst 10kb tc class add dev wan parent 1:15 classid 1:155 htb prio 2 rate 5kbit ceil 400kbit burst 10kb
# Filters tc filter add dev wan parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 handle 11 fw flowid 1:151 tc filter add dev wan parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 handle 12 fw flowid 1:152 tc filter add dev wan parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 handle 13 fw flowid 1:153 tc filter add dev wan parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 handle 14 fw flowid 1:154 tc filter add dev wan parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 handle 15 fw flowid 1:155 tc filter add dev wan parent 1: protocol ip prio 2 handle 1 fw flowid 1:14 tc filter add dev wan parent 1: protocol ip prio 3 u32 match ip tos 0x10 0x1e flowid 1:11 tc filter add dev wan parent 1: protocol ip prio 3 u32 match ip tos 0x08 0x1e flowid 1:121 tc filter add dev wan parent 1: protocol ip prio 3 u32 match ip sport 80 0xffff flowid 1:13 tc filter add dev wan parent 1: protocol ip prio 3 u32 match ip sport 443 0xffff flowid 1:13
# Leaf nodes tc qdisc add dev wan parent 1:11 handle 2: sfq p
Lately, it seems to tag executables that have been downloaded and warns you about it when you try to run them. Yes, I have been wondering greatly how that feature is implemented in Windows, but I don't even know what to Google for. Does someone know? Is it some kind of MAC or just some xattr that Windows Explorer looks for, or something completely else?
I stand by my point, and assert that you give Win32 too much credit. Win32 is not a well defined API that can merely be "implemented". Rather, it is a set of functions that makes up an implementation of an operating system. For Win32 to work, it cannot just be implemented according to the information that Microsoft has released. Rather, Microsoft's exact implementation must be emulated. That is what Wine does.
Why would I want to use Wine when I can just run windows in a virtual machine? Because you...
...don't have a copy of Windows to install and don't want to buy one.
...want the application window to use your normal X11 window manager rather than having to have an entire Windows environment with start menu and everything.
...don't want to wait for Windows to boot every time you want to run the application.
...want to run an application using 3D.
...don't have VMX hardware and don't want to shell out money for VMware.
...don't want the overhead of emulating the entire hardware.
I won't argue the reason that you don't want to run proprietary software, because if you're running Windows applications, that's probably not your problem. However, even so, I would feel it would be nice to be able to run e.g. a game without necessarily making my system a nest of evil. I've always felt that I don't mind games being proprietary -- they're a bit like movies or books in the way that it is the content, and not the code, that actually matters.
That said, there are obviously lots of reasons for wanting to use Wine.
We only need one system: 1 KB = 1024 bytes. 1 MB = 1024 KB. 1 GB = 1024 MB. 1 TB = 1024 GB. And 1 TB ought to be enough for anyone ^.^ While I may agree that we only need one system, the fact is that we have two systems. And not only that, but you can't really say that people are in any way "wrong" when they all they do is use the SI prefixes in the exact same way that they are being used by everyone else outside of the computer industry.
Thus, since we have two systems (whether you want it or not), and one of them is the actual correct usage of the term in question, would it not be quite reasonable to invent new terms for the new system?
Some people are angry that their precious SI prefixes were usurped. Pray tell, did you at no point in your fired rage stop to think that some people may actually be angry (or merely annoyed) at the fact that units like kB, MB and GB mean completely different things depending on who says them? If so, did you, by any chance, also consider that it is an issue that may actually be fixable by calling the two different uses of them by different names? Like, say, "GiB"?
Sure, I may agree that "Gibibyte" sounds really ridiculous, and that whoever invented the name may have been better served by naming it slightly differently, but I don't see there being anything wrong with at least using the acronym "GiB" instead of "GB". God knows I do when I write programs (except, of course, when I actually mean 1e9 bytes).
Think about low end computers, IMHO putting the GPU in the same die as the CPU will provide better performance/cost than embedded in the motherboard. Oh? I thought I always heard about this CPU/GPU combo chip in the context of high-performance graphics, but I may just have mistaken the intent, then. If it's about economics, I can understand it. Thanks for the explanation!
Why would one even want to have a GPU on the same die as the CPU? Maybe I'm just being dense here, but I don't see the advantage.
On the other hand, I certainly do see possibly disadvantages with it. For one thing, they would reasonably be sharing one bus interface in that case, which would lead to possibly less parallelism in the system.
[...]A lot of companies are required, either due to regulations, contract or their own corporate policies to perform audits on computer systems. Having a "one stop shop" by MS where someone can punch a button and generate a report on vital machine statistics for every single thing hooked up to the corporate network, down to the USB powered urinals, regardless of OS being run, will allow IT shops more freedom in choosing operating systems.[...] Seeing you say that at least seems to verify my suspicions about these kinds of programs; people do not use them because they actually want to, but because they are required to.
Not having used MOM, I cannot see what it would be good for, so maybe you could enlighten me a bit? What would one use an overview on one's servers for? What kind of "system health" monitoring would be better than, say, a hardware watchdog timer?
False. Windows NT is, and always has been, a multiuser OS. Indeed -- the NT kernel is, and always has been, a multiuser kernel. That does not, however, make Windows a multiuser operating system, if I may say so. I, too, would think that the GP doesn't really know what he's talking about, but when put into another perspective, his argument that "multiuser support has been tacked onto Windows" isn't unfair in any way.
If Microsoft had indeed taken the NT kernel and built a sensible operating system above it, it would have been a multiuser system, but they didn't. Instead, they took the entire DOS and Windows 3.x world and put the NT kernel underneath it. Technically speaking, they rather tacked a single-user mindset and framework on top a multiuser kernel, making a single-user operating system. Since the NT kernel basically was written to supplant Windows anyway, it isn't entirely biased to argue that multiuser support was tacked onto Windows.
Of course, I am still not arguing against the NT kernel. Microsoft could just as well have done the same thing with the Linux kernel as well, and the result would have sucked as badly. In fact, I don't know very much about the NT kernel internals (since the documentation isn't quite as easy to get at as it is in Unix), but I would guess that it isn't an entirely bad idea at an operating system kernel. Unfortunately, the kernel alone doesn't make an operating system, and Microsoft decided to build a basically single-user system on top of the kernel.
Language is typically defined by usage, not the other way around. Precisely -- which is why some of us are trying to use binary prefixes as much as possible, to make that the language.
Remember that "kilo" *did* (and does) mean 1024 in a computing context. Everybody understood that who was involved on a technical level. Everybody. Except the hard drive manufacturers.
I must admit to often failing to live up to those ideals, but that doesn't mean they're good aims to have in mind. I disagree. Some algorithms, by their very definition, do require some level of loops, and/or are simply best represented in a deeply nested way. Where's the gain in polluting the namespace just for the sake of the kind of implementation that the Linux kernel coding style advocates? Or, for that matter, in requiring more vertical scrolling to bounce back and forth between the auxiliary functions necessary for such an implementation?
I do agree that there are many examples out there of deeply nested algorithms that could be more elegantly implemented in a less nested way, I am far from convinced that "less nesting is better" is some universal truth to be applied everywhere. Or even often, for that matter.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the homepage says that it will run only on a GNU/Hurd desktop. Oh, and the Windows server edition will require WinFS.
It may not be something you would like to do to your servers at work, but I installed coreboot (formerly LinuxBIOS) on my server at home, and it takes 6 seconds to hand over to the operating system (the bootloader is in ROM).
You may also want to try Vimperator, a Firefox extension for controlling the browser entirely with the keyboard, with vi-like keybindings. It's not perfect, but I find it much more convenient than the standard mouse-driver interface.
I don't know about his WRT router, but I used to be using HTB shaping on a Pentium II 400 MHz box, without ever seeing it take even so much as a percent of its CPU cycles.
There are two key points:
For reference, here is the script that I use to set up the traffic shaping. It might prove useful to you.
(All-important disclaimer: I don't use Windows myself, of course, but I might at least be able to help people who do)
There, I corrected that for you.
I stand by my point, and assert that you give Win32 too much credit. Win32 is not a well defined API that can merely be "implemented". Rather, it is a set of functions that makes up an implementation of an operating system. For Win32 to work, it cannot just be implemented according to the information that Microsoft has released. Rather, Microsoft's exact implementation must be emulated. That is what Wine does.
An emulator, by the very definition of the word, emulates something. Wine emulates the MS Windows API. Thus, Wine is an emulator.
- ...don't have a copy of Windows to install and don't want to buy one.
- ...want the application window to use your normal X11 window manager rather than having to have an entire Windows environment with start menu and everything.
- ...don't want to wait for Windows to boot every time you want to run the application.
- ...want to run an application using 3D.
- ...don't have VMX hardware and don't want to shell out money for VMware.
- ...don't want the overhead of emulating the entire hardware.
I won't argue the reason that you don't want to run proprietary software, because if you're running Windows applications, that's probably not your problem. However, even so, I would feel it would be nice to be able to run e.g. a game without necessarily making my system a nest of evil. I've always felt that I don't mind games being proprietary -- they're a bit like movies or books in the way that it is the content, and not the code, that actually matters.That said, there are obviously lots of reasons for wanting to use Wine.
Thus, since we have two systems (whether you want it or not), and one of them is the actual correct usage of the term in question, would it not be quite reasonable to invent new terms for the new system?
Sure, I may agree that "Gibibyte" sounds really ridiculous, and that whoever invented the name may have been better served by naming it slightly differently, but I don't see there being anything wrong with at least using the acronym "GiB" instead of "GB". God knows I do when I write programs (except, of course, when I actually mean 1e9 bytes).
On the other hand, I certainly do see possibly disadvantages with it. For one thing, they would reasonably be sharing one bus interface in that case, which would lead to possibly less parallelism in the system.
I absolutely love your sig, though. :)
Not having used MOM, I cannot see what it would be good for, so maybe you could enlighten me a bit? What would one use an overview on one's servers for? What kind of "system health" monitoring would be better than, say, a hardware watchdog timer?
If Microsoft had indeed taken the NT kernel and built a sensible operating system above it, it would have been a multiuser system, but they didn't. Instead, they took the entire DOS and Windows 3.x world and put the NT kernel underneath it. Technically speaking, they rather tacked a single-user mindset and framework on top a multiuser kernel, making a single-user operating system. Since the NT kernel basically was written to supplant Windows anyway, it isn't entirely biased to argue that multiuser support was tacked onto Windows.
Of course, I am still not arguing against the NT kernel. Microsoft could just as well have done the same thing with the Linux kernel as well, and the result would have sucked as badly. In fact, I don't know very much about the NT kernel internals (since the documentation isn't quite as easy to get at as it is in Unix), but I would guess that it isn't an entirely bad idea at an operating system kernel. Unfortunately, the kernel alone doesn't make an operating system, and Microsoft decided to build a basically single-user system on top of the kernel.
I do agree that there are many examples out there of deeply nested algorithms that could be more elegantly implemented in a less nested way, I am far from convinced that "less nesting is better" is some universal truth to be applied everywhere. Or even often, for that matter.