OK, my apologies. In my defense, the article linked in the summary said TB, as I noted...I've since read several others that say PB. (As a side note the others also said the number of CPUs listed actually refers to cores [which makes much more sense given the rack space noted]). Now I have no idea which article is correct, sorry for calling you out like that - it did seem clear cut at the time. If it makes you feel any better, your previous comment is still 'informative', while mine is 'redundant'.;)
Sorry, need to call you out on that. You either suffer form some form of dyslexia or are karma whoring (for mods that don't RTFA). I actually was all set to mod you up, glad I really did RTFA.
Boasting over 1.6 million processors and some 1.6TB of memory, the Sequoia system will initially be used to keep track of the US' mountain of aging nukes...
Or were you saying that 'TB' is the new acronym for 'petabytes'?
Here's your 'they' -
Sponsor: Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] (introduced 1/9/2009) Cosponsors (None) - He couldn't even get one cosponsor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King Check out the 'Criticism of policies' section in the Wikipedia link for such gems as: "criticized for his staunch support to allow the government to eavesdrop on American citizens without court-authorized wiretaps..." and: "In late August 2006, King endorsed racial profiling as a law enforcement tool"
And statistically less than 300 of them live in the US.
Well.... I would have to think you need to take the easy migration of people into account. I personally know around a dozen very bright people that have moved to Silicon Valley from all over the world, specifically because of the working and/or living environment. OK, they might not be 'one-in-a-million geniuses' but I think it stands to reason some of them moved here as well. On a somewhat related note, one of the guys I know is a talented microchip designer (was making well over $150K) with ~15 years experience that's been out of work for some months...
Do you have Silverlight installed? I tried initially with Firefox, clicking the final download button (after all the registration screens) did nothing. Switched to IE, and I got the same prompt to install the ActiveX download manager* and IE just hangs. From reading other comments here, I wonder if it is because I never installed Silverlight.
*(from Akamai - which I find hilarious that is what they meant by 'add more servers' - the company I work for hosts a few hundred servers for Akamai just down the road - I'd be getting the ISO from my own data center:))
Well, it certainly is sad, and most likely true to some extent, but seriously I'm only 31 and I recall easily the days when all disks were shipped unformatted. I would like to think that ^most^ consumers could get the hang of formatting disks fairly quickly.
But then with ^most^ users using Windows, wouldn't they format it with FAT anyway?
This is a relatively small version, and it goes down a full three feet. In my experience they are easy to use and can be found at equipment rental places all over. Saves a lot of money and hassle of replacing your lawn. Also I would definitely go with the conduit - these create a trench just wide enough for them. Just be sure to run several lengths of string down it for later CAT5 or whatever.
I appreciate the answer, but you replied to the bit where I was trying (poorly) for humor. I know what burst speed vs sustainable speed is all about. What I wanted you to explain is what makes you think a medium that has a burst speed of 4.8 Gbit/s will not be able to sustain > 1 Gbit/s (like your ethernet). I have read a bit, and not seen any info either way...
Then, I killed it and fired up a video game. It was slower.
I know it would be a hell of a coincidence if it was something else causing you problems, but... are you sure it was Chrome? I just tried the same thing; fired it up (and updated, as I haven't run it since it came out - back then it did not have smooth scrolling). When I killed it, the updater is sure there, but it is using 516K. Of the 73 processes I have running, it takes third from last in memory use. Seriously, RAM for older computers is very cheap these days; if you notice when you are short 516K, pick up a gig for $15, regardless if you use chrome or not. Or am I missing something?
Bigots, racists, and xenophobes (read: douchebags) live in every state... Living in the heart of silicon valley for the last four years, I've really not seen this sort of attitude. AC trolls suck, perhaps best not to feed them?
Couldn't agree more. I had the equivalent of these (slightly less evolved 18 years ago... aside form the C64, which was my second computer) back then and I loved them all. Off the top of my head, I would only add a decent chemistry set; although I hear they are becoming more and more limited in scope these days. Perhaps also model rockets - cheap enough and really fun.
I can't believe I'm responding to you again, as I usually avoid arguing with people on here. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, you just happen to be entirely missing my point.
The lack of technical details in your post proves you have no idea what it takes to build servers comparable to what storage vendors sell...
No, it proves it is a waste of my time to research and post them here.
As always, I'll conclude by citing the example of Google that started by building their datacenters out of OEM parts with motherboards and drives literally velcro'd together. Perfect example of good system integrators hired to do the job in-house instead of buying from storage vendors...
Dude. Just, dude. I will spend 30 seconds on this one for you, since you seem to be laboring under some large delusional mindset here. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_servers_does_Google_have (no idea of the date: 700,000) http://gotads.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-many-servers-does-google-have.html (6/27/2006 : 450,000 - 500,000) http://www.techworld.com/green-it/features/index.cfm?featureid=3487 (June 26, 07: 500,000+) http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9955184-7.html..."clusters of 1,800 servers are pretty routine, if not exactly ho-hum.
In each cluster's first year, it's typical that 1,000 individual machine failures will occur; thousands of hard drive failures will occur; one power distribution unit will fail, bringing down 500 to 1,000 machines for about 6 hours; 20 racks will fail, each time causing 40 to 80 machines to vanish from the network; 5 racks will "go wonky," with half their network packets missing in action; and the cluster will have to be rewired once, affecting 5 percent of the machines at any given moment over a 2-day span, Dean said. And there's about a 50 percent chance that the cluster will overheat, taking down most of the servers in less than 5 minutes and taking 1 to 2 days to recover."
So, give or take a FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND servers, you think this is a cost effective solution for a company with less than a $98.03 Billion Market cap? Respond if you really must, but I'm really getting the feeling you are just Trolling, so I think I'm all set here.
Slashdot Mirror
Second photo down... Russin Linux int the wild!
OK, my apologies. In my defense, the article linked in the summary said TB, as I noted...I've since read several others that say PB. (As a side note the others also said the number of CPUs listed actually refers to cores [which makes much more sense given the rack space noted]). Now I have no idea which article is correct, sorry for calling you out like that - it did seem clear cut at the time. ;)
If it makes you feel any better, your previous comment is still 'informative', while mine is 'redundant'.
Or were you saying that 'TB' is the new acronym for 'petabytes'?
Here's your 'they' - Sponsor: Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] (introduced 1/9/2009) Cosponsors (None) - He couldn't even get one cosponsor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King
Check out the 'Criticism of policies' section in the Wikipedia link for such gems as:
"criticized for his staunch support to allow the government to eavesdrop on American citizens without court-authorized wiretaps..."
and:
"In late August 2006, King endorsed racial profiling as a law enforcement tool"
Guy sounds like a real winner.
I came here for the Total Recall jokes; I can't believe I'm leaving disappointed. /., what has become of you?
Oh,
I would agree that right now that is a liability. Prior to the economy taking a dive, he was in high demand.
Well.... I would have to think you need to take the easy migration of people into account. I personally know around a dozen very bright people that have moved to Silicon Valley from all over the world, specifically because of the working and/or living environment. OK, they might not be 'one-in-a-million geniuses' but I think it stands to reason some of them moved here as well.
On a somewhat related note, one of the guys I know is a talented microchip designer (was making well over $150K) with ~15 years experience that's been out of work for some months...
Do you have Silverlight installed? I tried initially with Firefox, clicking the final download button (after all the registration screens) did nothing. Switched to IE, and I got the same prompt to install the ActiveX download manager* and IE just hangs. From reading other comments here, I wonder if it is because I never installed Silverlight.
:))
*(from Akamai - which I find hilarious that is what they meant by 'add more servers' - the company I work for hosts a few hundred servers for Akamai just down the road - I'd be getting the ISO from my own data center
Well, it certainly is sad, and most likely true to some extent, but seriously I'm only 31 and I recall easily the days when all disks were shipped unformatted. I would like to think that ^most^ consumers could get the hang of formatting disks fairly quickly.
But then with ^most^ users using Windows, wouldn't they format it with FAT anyway?
This is a relatively small version, and it goes down a full three feet. In my experience they are easy to use and can be found at equipment rental places all over.
Saves a lot of money and hassle of replacing your lawn. Also I would definitely go with the conduit - these create a trench just wide enough for them. Just be sure to run several lengths of string down it for later CAT5 or whatever.
Cheers.
Dunno why TFA didn't just link to their site... much more info.
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
"WTF? Does that mean the US telcos are double dipping?!"
No, it is just a different model.
Don't you mean: "Yes, but it is also a different model."?
Can you condense that for me a bit? I don't have a lot of time for reading...
If I promise to leave it 'mounted to a solid, stationary platform while in use', will you tell me where to buy one of those?
We should be so lucky...
I appreciate the answer, but you replied to the bit where I was trying (poorly) for humor. I know what burst speed vs sustainable speed is all about. What I wanted you to explain is what makes you think a medium that has a burst speed of 4.8 Gbit/s will not be able to sustain > 1 Gbit/s (like your ethernet). I have read a bit, and not seen any info either way...
in practice you'll probably still get much better speed out of Gigabit ethernet than you will with USB 3.0.
Seriously though, [citation needed].
Then, I killed it and fired up a video game. It was slower.
I know it would be a hell of a coincidence if it was something else causing you problems, but... are you sure it was Chrome?
I just tried the same thing; fired it up (and updated, as I haven't run it since it came out - back then it did not have smooth scrolling).
When I killed it, the updater is sure there, but it is using 516K.
Of the 73 processes I have running, it takes third from last in memory use. Seriously, RAM for older computers is very cheap these days; if you notice when you are short 516K, pick up a gig for $15, regardless if you use chrome or not. Or am I missing something?
Benjamin Franklin said it best, and I couldn't agree more.
Bigots, racists, and xenophobes (read: douchebags) live in every state... Living in the heart of silicon valley for the last four years, I've really not seen this sort of attitude. AC trolls suck, perhaps best not to feed them?
I started to try and figure out what that would look like, and quickly discovered I do not want to know...
Couldn't agree more. I had the equivalent of these (slightly less evolved 18 years ago... aside form the C64, which was my second computer) back then and I loved them all. Off the top of my head, I would only add a decent chemistry set; although I hear they are becoming more and more limited in scope these days. Perhaps also model rockets - cheap enough and really fun.
Quick, go check in the mirror, I think you have an accessory a bit loose...
Exactly correct from what I've read on the subject. See also Backronym
The lack of technical details in your post proves you have no idea what it takes to build servers comparable to what storage vendors sell...
No, it proves it is a waste of my time to research and post them here.
As always, I'll conclude by citing the example of Google that started by building their datacenters out of OEM parts with motherboards and drives literally velcro'd together. Perfect example of good system integrators hired to do the job in-house instead of buying from storage vendors...
Dude. Just, dude. I will spend 30 seconds on this one for you, since you seem to be laboring under some large delusional mindset here. ..."clusters of 1,800 servers are pretty routine, if not exactly ho-hum.
In each cluster's first year, it's typical that 1,000 individual machine failures will occur; thousands of hard drive failures will occur; one power distribution unit will fail, bringing down 500 to 1,000 machines for about 6 hours; 20 racks will fail, each time causing 40 to 80 machines to vanish from the network; 5 racks will "go wonky," with half their network packets missing in action; and the cluster will have to be rewired once, affecting 5 percent of the machines at any given moment over a 2-day span, Dean said. And there's about a 50 percent chance that the cluster will overheat, taking down most of the servers in less than 5 minutes and taking 1 to 2 days to recover."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_servers_does_Google_have (no idea of the date: 700,000)
http://gotads.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-many-servers-does-google-have.html (6/27/2006 : 450,000 - 500,000)
http://www.techworld.com/green-it/features/index.cfm?featureid=3487 (June 26, 07: 500,000+)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9955184-7.html
So, give or take a FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND servers, you think this is a cost effective solution for a company with less than a $98.03 Billion Market cap?
Respond if you really must, but I'm really getting the feeling you are just Trolling, so I think I'm all set here.