Not entry trade job. A trade job after 4 years experience instead of a college education, tough, $80k is on the low end where I live. And replace the student debt for a small income during those years.
If you accept the terms of service, you can't complain when your domain is seized after you violate them. You should find a registrar with terms you agree with before you host your domain with them.
I think the premium is because Intel had to pour a lot of resources into working around Microsoft's broken operating system; Windows can't boot from storage volumes spanning multiple controllers. Probably a big effort to work around that mess. In comparison, Linux never had that problem, but if booting Windows from NVMe RAID is your goal, VROC looks like the only option from any vendor.
I think you are a little confused by Intel marketing speak. Actually, you are a lot confused.
-Matt
What the heck are you talking about? Intel devices have a quirky alignment requirement that they made work well in Linux (it's documented in the git logs), but Intel neglected BSD. What part of this do you consider to be marketing?
According to the Linux kernel, Intel NVMe devices have the block stack stick to certain alignments for performance reasons. Now quoting the above article: "All tests were done on a DragonFlyBSD". I doubt Intel did the same enabling there as they did for Linux.
It would be a lot easier if it was merged to mainline and ported to a distribution. Until that happens, you'd have to merge out-of-tree code into your kernel and create your own installation image. Not for the feint of heart!
If you want to use Linux on this platform in "RAID" mode with the supported BIOS, the source code to enable it is part of this patch series from an Intel developer: http://lists.infradead.org/pip.... It's not pretty, but it sounds like that's just how the hardware works.
I believe it was leaked that 3D XPoint is initially planned to be marketed at the enthusiast consumer rather than enterprise.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Nope, it is just a dog and pony show... there is no difference...
I guess if you think Congress should spend their time on dog and pony shows, your point makes sense.
Otherwise, it is silly.
If there is legit reason to pass on the nominee, then lets hear it. If you're so sure they'd hold a farce of a hearing, then let's see that instead. Why are you so afraid of giving an appointment their due anyway? If Obama is so bad at picking nominees, then that will surely come out in the hearing. Or maybe you're afraid the person is duly qualified, and you're just being spiteful?
They refuse to hold hearings. Isn't that the minimum due diligence?
So you'd be happier if they held a hearing and then said "pass"?
What's the difference?
If they pass, they pass. So what? In the option you appear to be defending, the Senate refuses to do their job they were elected to do. The second option is the one where they do their job. See the difference?
The President nominates people, but the Senate either confirms or rejects them...
Except the Senate refuses to do either. Instead, they are rejecting their constitutional duty. They prefer to tie the justice branch to the executive election for some reason.
Justice John Roberts (nominated by W. Bush) had an interesting piece on the whole process that should give the Republican controlled senate some thought.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03...
Because the round trip between kernel and user space is slow. And when you drive with the Logitech brand Racing Wheel, you want to go FAST!
Wouldn't you want to the driver in user space then? The application certainly runs in user space, so a user space driver avoids kernel land altogether.
Were it me answering, I'd ask who the fuck she was to accuse my husband of being a bad person before she ever spoke to him...and despite the fact that she was offered a couch for free!
No one in my town would think it's that odd of a request. This is what happens to people who respond to free Craigslist items here:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/...
The link from "back in July" was from 2013, and Sarah hasn't made a kernel contribution in 18 months. She's moved on to other projects, and I wish her the best of luck.
I had a hell of a bug about 8 years ago. Clearly it was a use after free in kernel process running in VxWorks that zero'ed out memory it no longer owned. The way it was observed was when a memory 'free size node' pointer was set to 0, corrupting the memory AVL tree. We couldn't reliably hit it; it had to happen only if the corrupted memory happened to be appended to the free size nodes, which meant it was a discontiguous free'd memory region, and then you wouldn't see the problem until someone allocated memory that had the matching requested size of the corrupted node, which meant we never got the same stack trace twice.
To test, we ran a simulation of the environment constantly destroying and re-instantiating the object structure, and would get about 1 hit every 12 hours. This program instantiated tens of thousands of objects from ~250 different classes. The bug was a misunderstood order in a class hierarchy destructor: one class's destructor cleared memory an inheriting class had already freed. Not a big deal to fix, but incredibly difficult to find.
We invented this to find it: http://www.google.com/patents/...
While I worked on this problem longer than anyone else, I sadly was not included on the patent.:(
There are definitely subtle interactions, and that's why this commit was not a candidate for stable. No distro back-ported immutable bio iterators (commit: 20d0189b1012a37d2533a87fb451f7852f2418d1).
Something doesn't add up... The fix for this was an oversight in a relatively new "bio_split()" routine that merged in with the immutable bio vector patch set for Linux kernel 3.15. The Algolia blog referenced in the Samsung patch claims it was able to replicate the discard issue using kernels 3.2, 3.10, and 3.14, before the bug existed. What gives?
I was at the Flash Memory Summit last month and everyone there that actually makes the stuff seems to disagree... Whether going 3D or moving toward 16nm planar, or any of the post-NAND technologies, the the price/GB will get noticeably cheaper every year. The only reason it is expensive now is that the supply wasn't ready for the demand.
Slashdot Mirror
Not entry trade job. A trade job after 4 years experience instead of a college education, tough, $80k is on the low end where I live. And replace the student debt for a small income during those years.
Looks like Broadcom's Ventura controller supports MegaRAID style h/w raid for NVMe.
If you accept the terms of service, you can't complain when your domain is seized after you violate them. You should find a registrar with terms you agree with before you host your domain with them.
I think the premium is because Intel had to pour a lot of resources into working around Microsoft's broken operating system; Windows can't boot from storage volumes spanning multiple controllers. Probably a big effort to work around that mess. In comparison, Linux never had that problem, but if booting Windows from NVMe RAID is your goal, VROC looks like the only option from any vendor.
Yes, all VMware projects use 3-spaces.
You're supposed to adopt to the coding style of the project you're working on.
If the goal is to save money, there is significantly lower fruit to pick... Obviously saving money has nothing to do with this.
I think you are a little confused by Intel marketing speak. Actually, you are a lot confused.
-Matt
What the heck are you talking about? Intel devices have a quirky alignment requirement that they made work well in Linux (it's documented in the git logs), but Intel neglected BSD. What part of this do you consider to be marketing?
P.S. the Intel 600P NVMe drive is also horrid, don't buy it.
http://apollo.backplane.com/DF...
-Matt
According to the Linux kernel, Intel NVMe devices have the block stack stick to certain alignments for performance reasons. Now quoting the above article: "All tests were done on a DragonFlyBSD". I doubt Intel did the same enabling there as they did for Linux.
It would be a lot easier if it was merged to mainline and ported to a distribution. Until that happens, you'd have to merge out-of-tree code into your kernel and create your own installation image. Not for the feint of heart!
If you want to use Linux on this platform in "RAID" mode with the supported BIOS, the source code to enable it is part of this patch series from an Intel developer: http://lists.infradead.org/pip.... It's not pretty, but it sounds like that's just how the hardware works.
I believe it was leaked that 3D XPoint is initially planned to be marketed at the enthusiast consumer rather than enterprise. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Note the asterisk leading to Samsung's disclaimer: "10nm-class denotes a process technology node somewhere between 10 and 19 nanometers".
So, you've gone from the president nominates candidates for a hearing to FlyHelicopters chooses who gets a hearing. Glad we cleared that up.
Nope, it is just a dog and pony show... there is no difference...
I guess if you think Congress should spend their time on dog and pony shows, your point makes sense.
Otherwise, it is silly.
If there is legit reason to pass on the nominee, then lets hear it. If you're so sure they'd hold a farce of a hearing, then let's see that instead. Why are you so afraid of giving an appointment their due anyway? If Obama is so bad at picking nominees, then that will surely come out in the hearing. Or maybe you're afraid the person is duly qualified, and you're just being spiteful?
They refuse to hold hearings. Isn't that the minimum due diligence?
So you'd be happier if they held a hearing and then said "pass"?
What's the difference?
If they pass, they pass. So what? In the option you appear to be defending, the Senate refuses to do their job they were elected to do. The second option is the one where they do their job. See the difference?
The President nominates people, but the Senate either confirms or rejects them...
Except the Senate refuses to do either. Instead, they are rejecting their constitutional duty. They prefer to tie the justice branch to the executive election for some reason. Justice John Roberts (nominated by W. Bush) had an interesting piece on the whole process that should give the Republican controlled senate some thought. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03...
Because the round trip between kernel and user space is slow. And when you drive with the Logitech brand Racing Wheel, you want to go FAST!
Wouldn't you want to the driver in user space then? The application certainly runs in user space, so a user space driver avoids kernel land altogether.
Were it me answering, I'd ask who the fuck she was to accuse my husband of being a bad person before she ever spoke to him...and despite the fact that she was offered a couch for free!
No one in my town would think it's that odd of a request. This is what happens to people who respond to free Craigslist items here: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/...
The SCUBA and Space Travel industries are the sole places where anybody makes a profit out of selling air to breath.
And hippie oxygen bars.
The link from "back in July" was from 2013, and Sarah hasn't made a kernel contribution in 18 months. She's moved on to other projects, and I wish her the best of luck.
I had a hell of a bug about 8 years ago. Clearly it was a use after free in kernel process running in VxWorks that zero'ed out memory it no longer owned. The way it was observed was when a memory 'free size node' pointer was set to 0, corrupting the memory AVL tree. We couldn't reliably hit it; it had to happen only if the corrupted memory happened to be appended to the free size nodes, which meant it was a discontiguous free'd memory region, and then you wouldn't see the problem until someone allocated memory that had the matching requested size of the corrupted node, which meant we never got the same stack trace twice. To test, we ran a simulation of the environment constantly destroying and re-instantiating the object structure, and would get about 1 hit every 12 hours. This program instantiated tens of thousands of objects from ~250 different classes. The bug was a misunderstood order in a class hierarchy destructor: one class's destructor cleared memory an inheriting class had already freed. Not a big deal to fix, but incredibly difficult to find. We invented this to find it: http://www.google.com/patents/... While I worked on this problem longer than anyone else, I sadly was not included on the patent. :(
There are definitely subtle interactions, and that's why this commit was not a candidate for stable. No distro back-ported immutable bio iterators (commit: 20d0189b1012a37d2533a87fb451f7852f2418d1).
Something doesn't add up ... The fix for this was an oversight in a relatively new "bio_split()" routine that merged in with the immutable bio vector patch set for Linux kernel 3.15. The Algolia blog referenced in the Samsung patch claims it was able to replicate the discard issue using kernels 3.2, 3.10, and 3.14, before the bug existed. What gives?
I was at the Flash Memory Summit last month and everyone there that actually makes the stuff seems to disagree... Whether going 3D or moving toward 16nm planar, or any of the post-NAND technologies, the the price/GB will get noticeably cheaper every year. The only reason it is expensive now is that the supply wasn't ready for the demand.