It's like the Internet. At a glance it looks like you've made an insightful comment. But if you study it too closely you realize you've just made another redundant posting.
And you get bitten in your a** when your disk drive fails and you didn't pay attention to set up the management and monitoring facilities.
That's what RAID hardware monitoring tools are for. Just because the OS doesn't have to know about the physical disks underlying the RAID, doesn't mean it can't be alerted to a physical disk failure. All decent hardware RAID controllers have such accompanying software.
What's rather humorous about this statement is that ultimately, all firewalls are implemented in software. What is firmware, again?
I am not making any implications at all that computer hardware is not anything more than software instructions flashed onto a chip. The point that I am trying to make here is that it in computing, it often helps to separate discrete tasks from the main processing ecosystem by adding a layer of abstraction for both simplicity and flexibility. There are numerous examples in the technology realm where this principle holds true; the seven network layers, relational database management (where table entries do not have any relevance to specific file names), and yes - computer data storage. Often, the operating system does not need - and should not have - direct physical access to low level hardware dialog. Much the same way that my personal desktop workstation does not need - nor should it have - direct unfettered communication to the Internet, even if it IS protected by a software firewall.
The latest versions of software RAID support a snapshotting feature which makes it impossible for the array to become out-of-sync.
I find it very hard to believe that it is ever "impossible" for any RAID array to become out of sync. All you can do is try your best to insure the configuration is kept protected at all costs. If the only location of the RAID configuration is on the RAID members themselves, how can there ever be a guarantee of its integrity? The approach you are recommending seems to be akin to storing the keys to the castle... inside the castle. (In addition, anything that claims to be fail-safe just hasn't met the right failure yet.)
Now, my point of view on all of this is from a enterprise server administration standpoint, where uptime is critical, recovery time is key, and every precaution is taken to ensure the least potential for error when the inevitable failure occurs. Alas, the datacenter environment is much different from the personal media environment, but hey - old habits die hard.
Software RAID just as fast? Please. Next you're going to tell me a software firewall is just as good as a hardware firewall, right?
Both have their applications, but let's be honest - It makes a hell of a lot of sense to add a layer of abstraction between your operating system and your disk storage. Leave the details of arranging all your 0's and 1's, stripe sizes, etc. to your RAID controller, while your operating system sees only what it needs to - a simple logical drive. (AKA virtual disk, logical volume, etc., depending on the vendor.) Add a battery to your RAID controller, and you aren't relying on your OS to keep the logical disk intact should your system be shut down uncleanly.
There is a cost-benefit curve that comes into play here also. But as a previous poster mentioned, the most cost-effective way of getting the most storage for the cheapest price is to get two cheap 500GB drives attached to a hardware RAID card, and you've covered the most likely failure scenarios. Total cost is less than $1000.
There's no need to get fancy here - I cant help laugh when I hear horror stories from my "hardcore" computer gaming friends who have highly tedious and unnecessary media setups - RAID-10 with hot spares, 5 fans to manage all the heat, and the bi-monthly critical meltdowns associated with it - all to store movies and porn. Overkill? You tell me.
You are either very young or very nieve to believe that your time is not worth anything. No matter how trivial these mundane computing tasks may be to you, remember that in their eyes you are providing a valuable service to them. Imagine the user trying to undertake the same tasks alone, without the knowledge that you have; even simple concepts in computerized image editing - including DPI, BPP, file formats, etc. - can be overwhelming.
I think the Microsoft TaskGallery project (part of Microsoft Research) is a prime example of what you might be referring to with 3D User interfaces. Too bad there hasn't been many (any) updates to the site recently, but you get the picture.
This seems to be a good test for the new "automatic update" feature in FF 1.5. I hope they can use this feature to address these security issues in a timely manner without all this fanfare.
You could kill two birds with one stone, and get an iPod. That way you will not only have all of your important stuff, but you'll be able to groove to some sweet tunes while looting and pillaging.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like the Internet. At a glance it looks like you've made an insightful comment. But if you study it too closely you realize you've just made another redundant posting.
That's what RAID hardware monitoring tools are for. Just because the OS doesn't have to know about the physical disks underlying the RAID, doesn't mean it can't be alerted to a physical disk failure. All decent hardware RAID controllers have such accompanying software.
All you can do is try your best to *ensure*
It's always after I hit Submit.
I am not making any implications at all that computer hardware is not anything more than software instructions flashed onto a chip. The point that I am trying to make here is that it in computing, it often helps to separate discrete tasks from the main processing ecosystem by adding a layer of abstraction for both simplicity and flexibility. There are numerous examples in the technology realm where this principle holds true; the seven network layers, relational database management (where table entries do not have any relevance to specific file names), and yes - computer data storage. Often, the operating system does not need - and should not have - direct physical access to low level hardware dialog. Much the same way that my personal desktop workstation does not need - nor should it have - direct unfettered communication to the Internet, even if it IS protected by a software firewall.
The latest versions of software RAID support a snapshotting feature which makes it impossible for the array to become out-of-sync.
I find it very hard to believe that it is ever "impossible" for any RAID array to become out of sync. All you can do is try your best to insure the configuration is kept protected at all costs. If the only location of the RAID configuration is on the RAID members themselves, how can there ever be a guarantee of its integrity? The approach you are recommending seems to be akin to storing the keys to the castle... inside the castle. (In addition, anything that claims to be fail-safe just hasn't met the right failure yet.)
Now, my point of view on all of this is from a enterprise server administration standpoint, where uptime is critical, recovery time is key, and every precaution is taken to ensure the least potential for error when the inevitable failure occurs. Alas, the datacenter environment is much different from the personal media environment, but hey - old habits die hard.
Software RAID just as fast? Please. Next you're going to tell me a software firewall is just as good as a hardware firewall, right?
Both have their applications, but let's be honest - It makes a hell of a lot of sense to add a layer of abstraction between your operating system and your disk storage. Leave the details of arranging all your 0's and 1's, stripe sizes, etc. to your RAID controller, while your operating system sees only what it needs to - a simple logical drive. (AKA virtual disk, logical volume, etc., depending on the vendor.) Add a battery to your RAID controller, and you aren't relying on your OS to keep the logical disk intact should your system be shut down uncleanly.
There is a cost-benefit curve that comes into play here also. But as a previous poster mentioned, the most cost-effective way of getting the most storage for the cheapest price is to get two cheap 500GB drives attached to a hardware RAID card, and you've covered the most likely failure scenarios. Total cost is less than $1000.
There's no need to get fancy here - I cant help laugh when I hear horror stories from my "hardcore" computer gaming friends who have highly tedious and unnecessary media setups - RAID-10 with hot spares, 5 fans to manage all the heat, and the bi-monthly critical meltdowns associated with it - all to store movies and porn. Overkill? You tell me.
The first thing I thought when I caught this headline was the awesome old-school Day of the Tentacle game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Tentacle
OMG lol you almost got me there for a second, i was rushing to patch my box but then i fi-#$!#@$%#@^&%
NO CARRIER
I feel sorry for the micromanaged offspring though.
By this i assume you mean Windows? Personally, I feel sorry for the kids.
Why is this modded "funny"? This is one of the primary [legitimate] reasons many businesses are forced to upgrade - to retain access to tech support.
Money. What else do you think?
You are either very young or very nieve to believe that your time is not worth anything. No matter how trivial these mundane computing tasks may be to you, remember that in their eyes you are providing a valuable service to them. Imagine the user trying to undertake the same tasks alone, without the knowledge that you have; even simple concepts in computerized image editing - including DPI, BPP, file formats, etc. - can be overwhelming.
I think the Microsoft TaskGallery project (part of Microsoft Research) is a prime example of what you might be referring to with 3D User interfaces. Too bad there hasn't been many (any) updates to the site recently, but you get the picture.
o .mpg
http://research.microsoft.com/ui/TaskGallery/
http://research.microsoft.com/ui/TaskGallery/vide
Perhaps this is some cleverly disguised viral marketing to promote Howard Stern's move to satellite radio?
This seems to be a good test for the new "automatic update" feature in FF 1.5. I hope they can use this feature to address these security issues in a timely manner without all this fanfare.
I think I saw that - wasn't it called goatse or something?
Here is the developer, on a kernel mailing list, asking for help with getting his rootkit off the ground.
w ww.osronline.com/showThread.cfm
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:hDmbqX5yahgJ:
Is there a way that I can get the CDAUDIO filter driver example in the DDK to load and unload dynamically?
He's trying to wipe out all references to his early comment that "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!"
I think by "couple of checks," you mean "a directory traversal attack."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/05/dec_case/
because our techs consistently forgot to put the side on the computer prior to shipment. Try explaining that to the end user...
Is another man's Comet Cursor.
perhaps some cute gift wrap and a smile is all that is really needed.
I do not understand why parent was modded down. This is a legitimate concern.
You could kill two birds with one stone, and get an iPod. That way you will not only have all of your important stuff, but you'll be able to groove to some sweet tunes while looting and pillaging.
nuff said.
Wow, its good to see HP getting with the times... the times being 1991...