I do - Google Reader checks probably every ten or 15 minutes. I was just pointing out that the parent's suggestion of 3-6 hours for high-volume feeds isn't likely enough.
On some feeds, that's still WAY too long of a wait. Digg for one, though it's mostly crap anyways. As a photographer, I subscribe to the Strobist Flickr Group feed (yeah, flickr has feeds for group photostreams - surprised me too) and according to Google Reader's stats page, that's had well over 8,000 items within the last 30 days (averaging over 275/day). Digg is a distant second at 100/day, then Slashdot in third with a mere 18.8 daily average.
Point being that 4-8 times a day just isn't nearly enough for the REALLY high-volume stuff.
Whatever - the solution is still spinning up the drives every so often. So long as my data is still available, I really don't care why the voodoo works.
That's kind of what I was thinking, except the poster specified DVD quality footage.
Seriously, consolidate and get rid of the crap. I've got tens of thousands of photos, and most of them suck. Mostly I can't be bothered to sort through them and delete the bad ones, but I know I should. Find the good material, spend a good amount to back it up very securely (local Drobo that syncs up with Amazon S3 and one of the online backup services maybe?), rather than trying to find a way to store tons of material that will never be viewed again. Your family will appreciate you for it too, since they'll end up with one disc of great moments, rather than a DVD spindle of boring crap.
I was under the impression that unspun drives tend to deteriorate relatively quickly - the heads clashing with the platter or some such nonsense. Just spin them up once a month and you're fine, from what I've heard.
I'm not going anywhere near saturating full gig-e, but 50-60MB/s (hard drive limited minus some network overhead) isn't unlikely. I'm not using a $20 bargin bin 5-port switch (I got a 16-port GigE D-link now), but even back when I was I still saw decent rates. I'll be interested to see if/how this changes tomorrow, as I just ordered 1.5TB of storage prompted by a Newegg special (it's been long overdue, even if it's overkill for the moment - I still have to micromanage the remaining space on my current disks), and the 750GB/32MB Samsungs reportedly transfer in the 90MB/s (!!) range thanks to stupidly dense platters. At that point it doesn't matter at all since the receiving computer's drive isn't fast enough.
It's not the frequency of installation, it's just a matter of how long each one takes. Whether it's daily or annually, I still have to wait around for way too long when I'm doing it, and for those hefty installs, it's usually because it's something I need RIGHT NOW so waiting is a huge pita if not a serious problem.
Also, you have to consider the seek times on hard drives versus a DVD drive. That's the big gain, not the maximum data throughput. Even if both the DVD and hard drive were limited to 20MB/s, I'd still have a seek time better by probably two orders of magnitude. For Photoshop, games, and other big installs that have thousands of tiny files for textures or whatever, it's the seek time that kills the transfer speed. However if I alleviate that issue by ripping the disc to an ISO on my hard drive (and I do), a lot of that performance gain is lost if I throw it through a network bottleneck.
Truth be told, it's largely overkill for my needs. But when I was setting it up, I had a little extra to spend and wanted it to be decently future-proof. Back to the original topic here, I had tried doing this on an EPIA board but the network controller was uselessly slow (by my standards) and as it's only got one PCI slot, a cheap-but-not-crap GigE card and a SATA board aren't both options.
I store all of my software installation discs as ISOs on my fileserver. A hard drive being tremendously faster than an optical drive (among the plenty of other conveniences) would be completely negated by a slow throughput. For movies it doesn't matter - it's a single file that doesn't need a tremendous amount of bandwidth. Game installation on the other hand is painfully slow if the connection sucks - even a Fast Ethernet connection is pretty tedious for that kind of thing. I get pretty annoyed speed-wise if it drops below 20MB/s or so. Yes, I'm being picky, but Photoshop CS3 is slow enough to install without the help of bad connectivity.
That only works if you're not stupid; or, rather, egotistical. Most intelligent people are reasonable enough to understand that other people are also smart, and that sometimes other people are smarter than the person doing the reasoning (and that getting someone who's really good at something to do that something is probably a good idea).
Stupid people, on the other hand, tend to get frustrated if people are talking above their level, and will side with (or vote for) the people who work at their level regardless of the outcome.
At least this has been my experience when working with the general public. YMMV.
True. But presumably you could write the script in any of the command-line editors and save it to the desktop or something, at which point the user could click on it.
Not that it matters. If you have that level of access, you're already in a position to do more damage than what you could do through this exploit, by the sounds of it.
No, I have. Game performance was perceptibly the same as in XP when nVidia's drivers weren't crashing my system (I really don't care what the numbers said - I could play at the same settings with the same smoothness; if it was 2fps lower, I couldn't tell and therefore I don't care). The only consistent performance issue I've seen in Vista (on a half-decent computer, rather than the tremendously half-assed gear you'll get from HP and such) was related to network file transfers; my understanding is that this was resolved in SP1.
Some skillsets cannot simply be trained, for example mechanical and electrical engineers. They require degrees and, in some cases, professional certification.
And how the hell do people get degrees and professional certification? Sure, those things tend to have a much longer training period, but it can't be that difficult to find people capable of Doing The Math, which is really to what a huge amount of engineering boils down.
Vista's been out, what, 18 months? You think they'd get on that driver thing, especially as it's nVidia's shitty drivers that are causing so much with Vista in the first place. I'm genuinely surprised that they haven't been sued by Microsoft at this point, seeing how much of the Vista-hate is their fault.
Requires a $500 cable to mask their incompetence? You can buy a thousand feet of Cat6, a crimper, and plenty of RJ45 heads for, what, under $200? I expect most slashdotters have such materials sitting around quite available, and could make an effective cable for about five bucks worth of material, assuming that their cables use standard twists even if the plugs have the wires fitted in a different order. Of course I find it unlikely that the twisting would have any discernible effect on whatever snake oil they're peddling, but that's a different matter.
Meh. You should be using a network share in some form or another, whether it's a mapped drive or something accessible via a web interface on your Intranet. Throwing around external drives, USB sticks, and screwing with partitions should have no place in the workplace.
As an added bonus, the server doesn't care what protocol your system is capable of reading and writing, since the OS translates the network requests into writing the drive. Of course, NTFS still has limitations that could pose problems to OS X users unrelated to read-write (@ : \ in file and folder names, etc. - iPhoto and Aperture at least could create issues from this), but that's unrelated to the location of the drive.
In any case, OS X has no problem reading from NTFS partitions, just writing. It's the same the other way around, and it's the same with the vast array of Linux-oriented file systems too. Bring on ZFS.
Does it really matter what it's called in an RFP? I don't care whether it's called a remote pilot disabling utility or a ground-to-plane signal transponder. If it's used on my plane, I still probably end up dead. And without at least having my ticket refunded to boot.
I wouldn't say that's entirely accurate, from my understanding. Source code is source code, and you can attach whatever license you like. The difference here is that in order for truly widespread distribution, it has to go through a single point. If you care about open source for the sake of actually having the source, the lack of easy binary distribution is a non-issue since you're just going to modify things and re-compile it yourself.
I'm not saying that I agree with the policy, but I wouldn't say that it's a show-stopper either.
Slashdot Mirror
I do - Google Reader checks probably every ten or 15 minutes. I was just pointing out that the parent's suggestion of 3-6 hours for high-volume feeds isn't likely enough.
On some feeds, that's still WAY too long of a wait. Digg for one, though it's mostly crap anyways. As a photographer, I subscribe to the Strobist Flickr Group feed (yeah, flickr has feeds for group photostreams - surprised me too) and according to Google Reader's stats page, that's had well over 8,000 items within the last 30 days (averaging over 275/day). Digg is a distant second at 100/day, then Slashdot in third with a mere 18.8 daily average.
Point being that 4-8 times a day just isn't nearly enough for the REALLY high-volume stuff.
Whatever - the solution is still spinning up the drives every so often. So long as my data is still available, I really don't care why the voodoo works.
That's kind of what I was thinking, except the poster specified DVD quality footage.
Seriously, consolidate and get rid of the crap. I've got tens of thousands of photos, and most of them suck. Mostly I can't be bothered to sort through them and delete the bad ones, but I know I should. Find the good material, spend a good amount to back it up very securely (local Drobo that syncs up with Amazon S3 and one of the online backup services maybe?), rather than trying to find a way to store tons of material that will never be viewed again. Your family will appreciate you for it too, since they'll end up with one disc of great moments, rather than a DVD spindle of boring crap.
I was under the impression that unspun drives tend to deteriorate relatively quickly - the heads clashing with the platter or some such nonsense. Just spin them up once a month and you're fine, from what I've heard.
I'm not going anywhere near saturating full gig-e, but 50-60MB/s (hard drive limited minus some network overhead) isn't unlikely. I'm not using a $20 bargin bin 5-port switch (I got a 16-port GigE D-link now), but even back when I was I still saw decent rates. I'll be interested to see if/how this changes tomorrow, as I just ordered 1.5TB of storage prompted by a Newegg special (it's been long overdue, even if it's overkill for the moment - I still have to micromanage the remaining space on my current disks), and the 750GB/32MB Samsungs reportedly transfer in the 90MB/s (!!) range thanks to stupidly dense platters. At that point it doesn't matter at all since the receiving computer's drive isn't fast enough.
It's not the frequency of installation, it's just a matter of how long each one takes. Whether it's daily or annually, I still have to wait around for way too long when I'm doing it, and for those hefty installs, it's usually because it's something I need RIGHT NOW so waiting is a huge pita if not a serious problem.
Also, you have to consider the seek times on hard drives versus a DVD drive. That's the big gain, not the maximum data throughput. Even if both the DVD and hard drive were limited to 20MB/s, I'd still have a seek time better by probably two orders of magnitude. For Photoshop, games, and other big installs that have thousands of tiny files for textures or whatever, it's the seek time that kills the transfer speed. However if I alleviate that issue by ripping the disc to an ISO on my hard drive (and I do), a lot of that performance gain is lost if I throw it through a network bottleneck.
Truth be told, it's largely overkill for my needs. But when I was setting it up, I had a little extra to spend and wanted it to be decently future-proof. Back to the original topic here, I had tried doing this on an EPIA board but the network controller was uselessly slow (by my standards) and as it's only got one PCI slot, a cheap-but-not-crap GigE card and a SATA board aren't both options.
I store all of my software installation discs as ISOs on my fileserver. A hard drive being tremendously faster than an optical drive (among the plenty of other conveniences) would be completely negated by a slow throughput. For movies it doesn't matter - it's a single file that doesn't need a tremendous amount of bandwidth. Game installation on the other hand is painfully slow if the connection sucks - even a Fast Ethernet connection is pretty tedious for that kind of thing. I get pretty annoyed speed-wise if it drops below 20MB/s or so. Yes, I'm being picky, but Photoshop CS3 is slow enough to install without the help of bad connectivity.
That only works if you're not stupid; or, rather, egotistical. Most intelligent people are reasonable enough to understand that other people are also smart, and that sometimes other people are smarter than the person doing the reasoning (and that getting someone who's really good at something to do that something is probably a good idea).
Stupid people, on the other hand, tend to get frustrated if people are talking above their level, and will side with (or vote for) the people who work at their level regardless of the outcome.
At least this has been my experience when working with the general public. YMMV.
True. But presumably you could write the script in any of the command-line editors and save it to the desktop or something, at which point the user could click on it.
Not that it matters. If you have that level of access, you're already in a position to do more damage than what you could do through this exploit, by the sounds of it.
Premature? For a product that took a decade and a half to reach 1.0, I'm not sure that's the correct word.
No, I have. Game performance was perceptibly the same as in XP when nVidia's drivers weren't crashing my system (I really don't care what the numbers said - I could play at the same settings with the same smoothness; if it was 2fps lower, I couldn't tell and therefore I don't care). The only consistent performance issue I've seen in Vista (on a half-decent computer, rather than the tremendously half-assed gear you'll get from HP and such) was related to network file transfers; my understanding is that this was resolved in SP1.
And how the hell do people get degrees and professional certification? Sure, those things tend to have a much longer training period, but it can't be that difficult to find people capable of Doing The Math, which is really to what a huge amount of engineering boils down.
If you're going from 200MW to 800kW from those changes, you should really consider dealing with that short-circuit before anything else.
(insert crack about iPhone's virtual keyboard that can be rearranged to whatever your thumbs desire)
Vista's been out, what, 18 months? You think they'd get on that driver thing, especially as it's nVidia's shitty drivers that are causing so much with Vista in the first place. I'm genuinely surprised that they haven't been sued by Microsoft at this point, seeing how much of the Vista-hate is their fault.
236W? I doubt you'll have any problems kicking ass on the frozen levels.
Requires a $500 cable to mask their incompetence? You can buy a thousand feet of Cat6, a crimper, and plenty of RJ45 heads for, what, under $200? I expect most slashdotters have such materials sitting around quite available, and could make an effective cable for about five bucks worth of material, assuming that their cables use standard twists even if the plugs have the wires fitted in a different order. Of course I find it unlikely that the twisting would have any discernible effect on whatever snake oil they're peddling, but that's a different matter.
Meh. You should be using a network share in some form or another, whether it's a mapped drive or something accessible via a web interface on your Intranet. Throwing around external drives, USB sticks, and screwing with partitions should have no place in the workplace.
As an added bonus, the server doesn't care what protocol your system is capable of reading and writing, since the OS translates the network requests into writing the drive. Of course, NTFS still has limitations that could pose problems to OS X users unrelated to read-write (@ : \ in file and folder names, etc. - iPhoto and Aperture at least could create issues from this), but that's unrelated to the location of the drive.
In any case, OS X has no problem reading from NTFS partitions, just writing. It's the same the other way around, and it's the same with the vast array of Linux-oriented file systems too. Bring on ZFS.
Does it really matter what it's called in an RFP? I don't care whether it's called a remote pilot disabling utility or a ground-to-plane signal transponder. If it's used on my plane, I still probably end up dead. And without at least having my ticket refunded to boot.
One should hope not, as any changes from a release candidate to the final version should only be bug fixes.
That's a 21-year-old textbook. I think it's had plenty of time to cool off.
I guess I need to buy a pack of pencils and throw them in the freezer. I'll be rich overnight!
It's just outsourcing your environmental concerns :)
I wouldn't say that's entirely accurate, from my understanding. Source code is source code, and you can attach whatever license you like. The difference here is that in order for truly widespread distribution, it has to go through a single point. If you care about open source for the sake of actually having the source, the lack of easy binary distribution is a non-issue since you're just going to modify things and re-compile it yourself.
I'm not saying that I agree with the policy, but I wouldn't say that it's a show-stopper either.
Sorry, what? That's on Digg. Over here we wait until news comes in about his explosive diarrhea.