From damien at mc-kenna.com Thu Jun 1 13:02:49 2006 From: damien at mc-kenna.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:48 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Windows graphics system flawed? Say it ain't so! Message-ID: http://www.apcstart.com/site/dwarne/2006/06/193/windows-graphics- system-to-be-overhauled -- Damien McKenna, husband, father, geek. damien@mc-kenna.com - http://www.mc-kenna.com/ From hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com Thu Jun 1 16:34:20 2006 From: hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com (William Warren) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:48 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] server build Message-ID: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> I am looking for a server vendor. The main thing i am looking for is a dual-core single socket machine that only "special" thing i need is a RAC.(remote access card). I like the dell drac but i want something opteron based. -- My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician) Linux user #322099 Machines: 206822 256638 276825 http://counter.li.org/ From hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com Thu Jun 1 17:28:51 2006 From: hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com (William Warren) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:48 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] server build In-Reply-To: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> References: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> Message-ID: <447F5C13.1000405@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> anyone have any vendor suggestions? William Warren wrote: > I am looking for a server vendor. The main thing i am looking for is a > dual-core single socket machine that only "special" thing i need is a > RAC.(remote access card). I like the dell drac but i want something > opteron based. -- My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician) Linux user #322099 Machines: 206822 256638 276825 http://counter.li.org/ From damien at mc-kenna.com Thu Jun 1 17:29:00 2006 From: damien at mc-kenna.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:48 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] server build In-Reply-To: <447F5C13.1000405@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> References: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> <447F5C13.1000405@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> Message-ID: On Jun 1, 2006, at 5:28 PM, William Warren wrote: > anyone have any vendor suggestions? http://www.sun.com/ No idea on the remote access card though. -- Damien McKenna, husband, father, geek. damien@mc-kenna.com - http://www.mc-kenna.com/ From b.j.smith at ieee.org Thu Jun 1 19:17:42 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:48 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] server build In-Reply-To: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> References: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> Message-ID: <1149203862.23886.36.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 16:34 -0400, William Warren wrote: > I am looking for a server vendor. The main thing i am looking for is a > dual-core single socket machine that only "special" thing i need is a > RAC.(remote access card). I like the dell drac but i want something > opteron based. There are several Tier-2 vendors who will sell you such a solution. ServerMicro and Tyan have several "whitebox" OEM solutions they build upon. And that includes the option for a management processor. The Red Hat AMD64 list is an excellent list to find several of these vendors, and they will support Linux far better than anyone Tier-1 short of HP: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list If you want a Tier-1 OEM, HP. You can always get a DL145 with just one dual-core processor. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" From b.j.smith at ieee.org Thu Jun 1 19:19:26 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:48 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Windows graphics system flawed? Say it ain't so! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1149203966.23886.39.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 13:02 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote: > http://www.apcstart.com/site/dwarne/2006/06/193/windows-graphics- > system-to-be-overhauled There has been some major comparisons of SuSE Linux 10.1 and its full compiz-based Xgl (OpenGL) environment to the Windows Vista builds with WGF 1.1 (DX9). In a nutshell, Vista _tanks_ on old (3-4 year-old) hardware. SuSE Linux 10.1 runs very nicely on old (3-4 year-old) hardware. Vista will _suck_ unless you have a serious CPU to match the _limited_ GPU acceleration in WGF 1.1. Wait for WGF 2.0 (DX10). -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" From ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net Thu Jun 1 20:14:29 2006 From: ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net (Austin Denyer (Ozz)) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:48 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] server build In-Reply-To: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> References: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> Message-ID: <20060601201429.8c2e1747.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 16:34:20 -0400, William Warren wrote: > > I am looking for a server vendor. The main thing i am looking for is a > dual-core single socket machine that only "special" thing i need is a > RAC.(remote access card). I like the dell drac but i want something > opteron based. Here's what I do. If I'm not in any hurry (I can wait a month) I go Monarch Computer www.monarchcomputer.com Monarch do also sell the RACs - I consider them crucial for mission-critical servers. If I want it in a hurry I go Dell (much as I hate Dell, I can order a server on Monday and be using it by Thursday). Regards, Ozz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060601/7ab6d42d/attachment.bin From hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com Fri Jun 2 08:10:46 2006 From: hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com (William Warren) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:48 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] server build In-Reply-To: <20060601201429.8c2e1747.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> References: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> <20060601201429.8c2e1747.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> Message-ID: <44802AC6.7070804@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> i'll have to call monarch as i have not been able to get a rac inside one of their opty boxes from the website yet. Austin (Ozz) Denyer wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 16:34:20 -0400, William Warren > wrote: >> I am looking for a server vendor. The main thing i am looking for is a >> dual-core single socket machine that only "special" thing i need is a >> RAC.(remote access card). I like the dell drac but i want something >> opteron based. > > Here's what I do. > > If I'm not in any hurry (I can wait a month) I go Monarch Computer > www.monarchcomputer.com > > Monarch do also sell the RACs - I consider them crucial for > mission-critical servers. > > If I want it in a hurry I go Dell (much as I hate Dell, I can order a > server on Monday and be using it by Thursday). > > Regards, > Ozz. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Pc_support mailing list > Pc_support@matrixlist.com > http://lists.matrixlist.com/mailman/listinfo/pc_support -- My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician) Linux user #322099 Machines: 206822 256638 276825 http://counter.li.org/ From b.j.smith at ieee.org Fri Jun 2 08:24:45 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] server build In-Reply-To: <44802AC6.7070804@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> References: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> <20060601201429.8c2e1747.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> <44802AC6.7070804@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> Message-ID: <1149251085.23886.167.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 08:10 -0400, William Warren wrote: > i'll have to call monarch as i have not been able to get a rac inside > one of their opty boxes from the website yet. A lot of people have been complaining about them -- from delays to mis-configurations/issues. I haven't experienced this myself, but I haven't purchased to many full systems from them. ASL (http://www.aslab.com) has been around since the mid-to-late '90s, and many of us in the semiconductor industry at the time (including Intel and Transmeta) used to use them for Linux systems. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" From ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net Fri Jun 2 11:18:58 2006 From: ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net (ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] server build In-Reply-To: <44802AC6.7070804@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> References: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> <20060601201429.8c2e1747.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> <44802AC6.7070804@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> Message-ID: <46794.69.176.47.130.1149261538.squirrel@www.ozz.is-a-geek.net> > i'll have to call monarch as i have not been able to get a rac inside > one of their opty boxes from the website yet. You will find that some of the motherboards contain what you need built-in. Check the motherboard specs when you are in the configurator. Several have built-in LOM (Lights-Out Management) which is the same as RAC. Regards, Ozz. From ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net Fri Jun 2 17:12:27 2006 From: ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net (Austin Denyer (Ozz)) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] server build In-Reply-To: <1149251085.23886.167.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> <20060601201429.8c2e1747.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> <44802AC6.7070804@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> <1149251085.23886.167.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <20060602171227.fe3c6064.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 08:24:45 -0400, "Bryan J. Smith" wrote: > > A lot of people have been complaining about them -- from delays to > mis-configurations/issues. I haven't experienced this myself, but I > haven't purchased to many full systems from them. My personal experience is that components and sub-assemblies (mobo/cpu/ram combos for example) ship very quickly. Full systems take forever. I have never had any quality issues with them - just delivery for systems. > ASL (http://www.aslab.com) has been around since the mid-to-late '90s, > and many of us in the semiconductor industry at the time (including > Intel and Transmeta) used to use them for Linux systems. Hmmm - Interesting. I might give them a try next time... Thanks for the link. Regards, Ozz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060602/eb69a9a9/attachment.bin From thomas at tecsplace.com Tue Jun 6 21:09:28 2006 From: thomas at tecsplace.com (Thomas Carlson) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] server build In-Reply-To: <20060601201429.8c2e1747.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> References: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> <20060601201429.8c2e1747.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> Message-ID: <1149642568.2471.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> I like monarch, since the company is very linux friendly. However, I agree their shipping time for a full system is quite long. I ordered a machine last week and will report back on how quick it arrives. Cheers, Thomas On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 20:14 -0400, Austin Denyer wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 16:34:20 -0400, William Warren > wrote: > > > > I am looking for a server vendor. The main thing i am looking for is a > > dual-core single socket machine that only "special" thing i need is a > > RAC.(remote access card). I like the dell drac but i want something > > opteron based. > > Here's what I do. > > If I'm not in any hurry (I can wait a month) I go Monarch Computer > www.monarchcomputer.com > > Monarch do also sell the RACs - I consider them crucial for > mission-critical servers. > > If I want it in a hurry I go Dell (much as I hate Dell, I can order a > server on Monday and be using it by Thursday). > > Regards, > Ozz. > _______________________________________________ > Pc_support mailing list > Pc_support@matrixlist.com > http://lists.matrixlist.com/mailman/listinfo/pc_support From ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net Tue Jun 6 21:43:05 2006 From: ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net (Austin Denyer (Ozz)) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] server build In-Reply-To: <1149642568.2471.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> <20060601201429.8c2e1747.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> <1149642568.2471.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20060606214305.7c1f990a.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:09:28 -0700, Thomas Carlson wrote: > > I like monarch, since the company is very linux friendly. However, I > agree their shipping time for a full system is quite long. We would use them a lot more if they could get their system turnaround half-way decent. We just ordered another rackmount server. I would have loved to have given the $5k to Monarch (and got an Opteron server), but when their delivery is close to 20 days (even with "Hot Rush" delivery!) it's hard to justify when Dell can get us a server (albeit Xeon) in 3 days - even though Monarch were cheaper (and that's after we beat Dell down $2k from $7k)... > I ordered a machine last week and will report back on how quick it > arrives. I'm sure you'll love it when it finally arrives. Out of interest, what system did you get? Regards, Ozz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060606/41c995b5/attachment.bin From tec at speakeasy.net Wed Jun 7 23:21:26 2006 From: tec at speakeasy.net (Thomas) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] server build In-Reply-To: <20060606214305.7c1f990a.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> References: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> <20060601201429.8c2e1747.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> <1149642568.2471.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060606214305.7c1f990a.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> Message-ID: <1149736886.2431.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Well, work wanted me to watch the budget and this wasn't a server, so I picked at Furia Value Workstation... http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=90383 I'd have to check, but I think I bought it before Brian posted his thoughts on the AM2 Socket based motherboards which look really good. Cheers, Thomas On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 21:43 -0400, Austin Denyer wrote: > On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:09:28 -0700, Thomas Carlson > wrote: > > > > I like monarch, since the company is very linux friendly. However, I > > agree their shipping time for a full system is quite long. > > We would use them a lot more if they could get their system turnaround > half-way decent. > > We just ordered another rackmount server. I would have loved to have > given the $5k to Monarch (and got an Opteron server), but when their > delivery is close to 20 days (even with "Hot Rush" delivery!) it's hard > to justify when Dell can get us a server (albeit Xeon) in 3 days - even > though Monarch were cheaper (and that's after we beat Dell down $2k from > $7k)... > > > I ordered a machine last week and will report back on how quick it > > arrives. > > I'm sure you'll love it when it finally arrives. > > Out of interest, what system did you get? > > Regards, > Ozz. > _______________________________________________ > Pc_support mailing list > Pc_support@matrixlist.com > http://lists.matrixlist.com/mailman/listinfo/pc_support From thomas at tecsplace.com Wed Jun 7 23:23:24 2006 From: thomas at tecsplace.com (Thomas Carlson) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] server build In-Reply-To: <20060606214305.7c1f990a.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> References: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> <20060601201429.8c2e1747.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> <1149642568.2471.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060606214305.7c1f990a.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> Message-ID: <1149737005.2431.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Well, work wanted me to watch the budget and this wasn't a server, so I picked at Furia Value Workstation... http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=90383 I'd have to check, but I think I bought it before Brian posted ( Thanks for the great info! :) ) his thoughts on the AM2 Socket based motherboards which look really good. Cheers, Thomas On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 21:43 -0400, Austin Denyer wrote: > On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:09:28 -0700, Thomas Carlson > wrote: > > > > I like monarch, since the company is very linux friendly. However, I > > agree their shipping time for a full system is quite long. > > We would use them a lot more if they could get their system turnaround > half-way decent. > > We just ordered another rackmount server. I would have loved to have > given the $5k to Monarch (and got an Opteron server), but when their > delivery is close to 20 days (even with "Hot Rush" delivery!) it's hard > to justify when Dell can get us a server (albeit Xeon) in 3 days - even > though Monarch were cheaper (and that's after we beat Dell down $2k from > $7k)... > > > I ordered a machine last week and will report back on how quick it > > arrives. > > I'm sure you'll love it when it finally arrives. > > Out of interest, what system did you get? > > Regards, > Ozz. > _______________________________________________ > Pc_support mailing list > Pc_support@matrixlist.com > http://lists.matrixlist.com/mailman/listinfo/pc_support From b.j.smith at ieee.org Thu Jun 8 00:51:28 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: server build -- _never_ use desktop mainboards in servers In-Reply-To: <1149736886.2431.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> <20060601201429.8c2e1747.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> <1149642568.2471.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060606214305.7c1f990a.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> <1149736886.2431.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1149742288.2747.40.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 20:21 -0700, Thomas wrote: > Well, work wanted me to watch the budget and this wasn't a server, so I > picked at Furia Value Workstation... > http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=90383 > I'd have to check, but I think I bought it before Brian posted his > thoughts on the AM2 Socket based motherboards which look really good. Socket-939 and Socket-AM2 (new 940) aren't different in performance, except Socket-AM2 is the future, more flexible and you're going to quickly be paying a premium for older Socket-939 solutions by year's end. Just FYI, in case I haven't mentioned it before (not directed at anyone) ... Socket-AM2 (940) is designed for _desktops_. Socket-F (LGA-1207) is designed for _servers_. *NEVER* run a desktop mainboard for a server -- *NEVER*. Non-graphics I/O can be 10-20x _slower_ -- which _kills_ as server. For a (dated, but still good) set of fundamentals in an article, see my 2004 November Sys Admin article here: "Dissecting PC Server Performance" http://www.samag.com/documents/sam0411b/ Now Socket-F isn't out yet, so Socket-940 (not the new AM2, but the original Socket-940) was designed for _servers_. Or for uniprocessor servers, there are low-cost Socket-939 Opterons and mainboards designed with 8x the non-graphics I/O for servers. I wrote about several of these, as well as Intel options, here: http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2005/12/budget-uniprocessor-pc-servers-wip.html If you're paying under $200 for a mainboard, it was _never_ designed for server use. You need PCI-X or newer PCIe x8 communication/storage slots -- along with higher-end NICs on-board (or _real_ GbEs added via PCI-X or PCIe slots). I snapped off some shots of _real_ server hardware at LinuxWorld in April: http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2006/04/server-hardware-at-linuxworld.html There's a reason why desktop hardware is cheaper -- it _sucks_ at server I/O. Heck, for just about 25% more, you can assemble a server that is 3x faster because it's not an I/O nightmare like 99% of desktops. Just in case anyone wasn't aware that Socket-AM2 is _not_ designed for servers. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" From b.j.smith at ieee.org Thu Jun 8 09:50:13 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: [OT] One more time =?windows-1251?q?=85?= Windows Vista system requirements In-Reply-To: <1149761465.5789.7.camel@P-733.mwmcmlln> References: <200606071155.11047.fmiller@lightlink.com> <1149761465.5789.7.camel@P-733.mwmcmlln> Message-ID: <1149774613.10388.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 11:55 -0400, Fred A. Miller wrote: > http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=10&tag=nl.e539 On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 06:11 -0400, Mike McMullin wrote: > It's nice to know that my video cards (on five systems) won't even > meet the minimum Vista install standards. Yep, you _must_ have a DirectX 9 era video card -- and you still get _no_ GPU off-load. That is because Windows Graphics Foundations (WGF) 1.1 is completely based on DirectX 9. That means at least an integrated graphics generation of NV44 (GeForce 6100) and little else -- typically stuff that is just coming out from ATI and Intel. So anyone who hasn't bought a PC with integrated graphics within the past year when Vista comes out can't even run it. Let me say that again, I'm not talking about not running the Avalon presentation system "well" -- I'm talking about virtually not being able to run it at all! WGF 1.1 seems to be a pretty horrendous and inefficient API and off-load (possibly lackthereof) for just running the old GDI/Explorer interfaces on Avalon. Now let's say you want to actually take advantage of GPU off-load -- the whole reason for WGF/Avalon -- to make the experience faster and smoother like MacOS X's QuartzExtreme, SuSE's Xgl, etc... You're basically dropping money on a $300 video card! And why is that? Because DirectX has never been (and possibly never will be) OpenGL. Avalon really relies on serious GPU horsepower so DirectX can do basic things that OpenGL does on hardware from 4 years ago! Microsoft was supposed to have DirectX 10 completed by now, and Windows Graphics Foundations (WGF) 2.0 in Vista. That would have, allegedly, brought DirectX up to par on OpenGL in many regards that would make Avalon usable on lesser hardware. From my understanding, Microsoft was getting serious (especially now that it owns many patents) on just leveraging various OpenGL/ARB extension support in most hardware that it has ignored for the longest time because they're not use for games -- until now for DirectX 10 / WGF 2.0. But in any case, WGF 2.0 is _not_ going in Vista. Microsoft is stuck with all the limitations of DirectX 9 in world setup, standard GPU off-load (or lackthereof), hack upon hack to handle all the GDI/Explorer interfaces in Avalon itself, etc... And it really sounds a lot more like more software layers than hardware speed-up -- stuff that Microsoft never would have needed for gaming in DirectX 9, but now finds itself longing and wishing it would have (let alone just stuck with OpenGL back in the mid-'90s on Chicago in the first place, like it did NT). Hence why Vista can't do squat on anything but on expensive, 2004+ era leading-edge video hardware, or 2006+ chipset integrated hardware -- whereas SuSE and Fedora can take basic, 2001-2002 era hardware, or 2003-2004 chipset era integrated hardware -- and do _full_ GPU off-load. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" From b.j.smith at ieee.org Thu Jun 8 09:56:47 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: [OT] One more time =?windows-1251?q?=85?= Windows Vista system requirements In-Reply-To: <1149774613.10388.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <200606071155.11047.fmiller@lightlink.com> <1149761465.5789.7.camel@P-733.mwmcmlln> <1149774613.10388.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <1149775007.10388.26.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:50 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > Now let's say you want to actually take advantage of GPU off-load -- the > whole reason for WGF/Avalon -- to make the experience faster and > smoother like MacOS X's QuartzExtreme, SuSE's Xgl, etc... You're > basically dropping money on a $300 video card! And why is that? > Because DirectX has never been (and possibly never will be) OpenGL. > Avalon really relies on serious GPU horsepower so DirectX can do basic > things that OpenGL does on hardware from 4 years ago! Last comment on this ... BTW, why would Microsoft care or have an incentive to create an efficient API that better off-loads the GPU and its framebuffer? I know everyone complains it's really about eye-candy, but anyone the first thing about and has used MacOS X's QuartzExtreme or SuSE 10.x's Compiz extensively _knows_ it's more about a _faster_ desktop through GPU-offload. I've been arguing this for years ever since Apple made it commodity with moderate (not even leading edge) 2001-2002 era hardware. But in the case of Vista, it _is_ eye-candy! That's the _only_ reason for it! And they _like_ the idea that it takes more hardware, because they did a botched-up job in software! Microsoft has moved from the PC OEM to the superstore. It's partners are not only trying to sell you the latest PC, but also to sell upgrades for it. A better video card than chipset integrated, a much higher-end, $1,500+ premium notebook (with notebook sales still gaining more and more of the market) instead of the $500 model. You have it right there in the superstore -- on the shelf -- and users can see the difference. And retailers see the difference in a +$300-1,000 sale. As an engineer, this insults me, but 90+% of consumers have themselves to blame, which is why it happens. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" From dmckenna at thelimucompany.com Thu Jun 8 10:55:24 2006 From: dmckenna at thelimucompany.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Re:_[Pc=5FSupport]_Re:_[OT]_One_more_time_=85_W?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?indows_Vista_system_=09requirements?= In-Reply-To: <1149775007.10388.26.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <200606071155.11047.fmiller@lightlink.com> <1149761465.5789.7.camel@P-733.mwmcmlln> <1149774613.10388.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1149775007.10388.26.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <1023F187-9239-4DB9-9D70-ACDF9F658D88@thelimucompany.com> BTW this also explains why there are comments of game incompatibility with Vista - DirectX is getting confused on whether it should be rendering the UI or the game. POS all-round. -- Damien McKenna - Web Developer - dmckenna@thelimucompany.com The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014 #include From dmckenna at thelimucompany.com Thu Jun 8 11:52:10 2006 From: dmckenna at thelimucompany.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Re:_[Pc=5FSupport]_Re:_[OT]_One_more_time_=85_W?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?indows_Vista_system_=09requirements?= In-Reply-To: <1149774613.10388.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <200606071155.11047.fmiller@lightlink.com> <1149761465.5789.7.camel@P-733.mwmcmlln> <1149774613.10388.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <0586A888-E463-4CD1-8695-CF493184D385@thelimucompany.com> On Jun 8, 2006, at 9:50 AM, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > Now let's say you want to actually take advantage of GPU off-load > -- the > whole reason for WGF/Avalon -- to make the experience faster and > smoother like MacOS X's QuartzExtreme, SuSE's Xgl, etc... You're > basically dropping money on a $300 video card! You said yourself that a DirectX9-compatible video card will work, so basically anything from a Radeon 9200 onwards or a Geforce 6000 series onwards, which puts the price well under $100 for even new cards. Even $150 will give people plenty of video speed. Heck, you can even get those cards in PCI flavors for people without AGP or PCI- e slots. Am I missing something? -- Damien McKenna - Web Developer - dmckenna@thelimucompany.com The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014 #include From b.j.smith at ieee.org Thu Jun 8 14:42:30 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: [OT] One more time =?windows-1251?Q?=85?= Windows Vista system requirements In-Reply-To: <1023F187-9239-4DB9-9D70-ACDF9F658D88@thelimucompany.com> References: <200606071155.11047.fmiller@lightlink.com> <1149761465.5789.7.camel@P-733.mwmcmlln> <1149774613.10388.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1149775007.10388.26.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1023F187-9239-4DB9-9D70-ACDF9F658D88@thelimucompany.com> Message-ID: <1149792150.10388.32.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 10:55 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote: > BTW this also explains why there are comments of game incompatibility > with Vista - DirectX is getting confused on whether it should be > rendering the UI or the game. POS all-round. It's really because of the separation of the GDI from DX. Microsoft never addressed it, unlike GLX (OpenGL on X). -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" From b.j.smith at ieee.org Thu Jun 8 14:45:13 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: [OT] One more time =?windows-1251?Q?=85?= Windows Vista system requirements In-Reply-To: <0586A888-E463-4CD1-8695-CF493184D385@thelimucompany.com> References: <200606071155.11047.fmiller@lightlink.com> <1149761465.5789.7.camel@P-733.mwmcmlln> <1149774613.10388.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <0586A888-E463-4CD1-8695-CF493184D385@thelimucompany.com> Message-ID: <1149792313.10388.36.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:52 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote: > You said yourself that a DirectX9-compatible video card will work, so > basically anything from a Radeon 9200 onwards Er, I think you mean Radeon 9500 (R300-series), the 9200 is the same series as the 8500 (R200-series). > or a Geforce 6000 series onwards, which puts the price well under $100 > for even new cards. Even $150 will give people plenty of video > speed. Heck, you can even get those cards in PCI flavors for people > without AGP or PCI-e slots. Am I missing something? Yes, you're missing a huge point. A NV4x/R3xx is the minimum to run Vista in _legacy_ GDI/Explorer mode. I.e., it runs _much_slower_ to show the _exact_same_ as you have with XP already! You're _not_ using the new Avalon system at all. If you want to actually leverage your GPU with Avalon and get any performance kick and features, you need a _lot_ more power. So it's rather self-defeating -- because you could get the same without it. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" From damien at mc-kenna.com Thu Jun 8 15:41:35 2006 From: damien at mc-kenna.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Re:_[Pc=5FSupport]_Re:_[OT]_One_more_time_=85_W?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?indows_Vista_system_=09requirements?= In-Reply-To: <1149792313.10388.36.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <200606071155.11047.fmiller@lightlink.com> <1149761465.5789.7.camel@P-733.mwmcmlln> <1149774613.10388.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <0586A888-E463-4CD1-8695-CF493184D385@thelimucompany.com> <1149792313.10388.36.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <165A6B23-C543-4DA9-AA81-8A525ADDFF08@mc-kenna.com> On Jun 8, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:52 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote: >> You said yourself that a DirectX9-compatible video card will work, so >> basically anything from a Radeon 9200 onwards > > Er, I think you mean Radeon 9500 (R300-series), the 9200 is the same > series as the 8500 (R200-series). My mistake, the 9200 is only DX8.1. The 9550 can be have for $45 off NewEgg, ditto for the Geforce 5000/6000 series which are DX9 compatible. >> or a Geforce 6000 series onwards, which puts the price well under >> $100 >> for even new cards. Even $150 will give people plenty of video >> speed. Heck, you can even get those cards in PCI flavors for people >> without AGP or PCI-e slots. Am I missing something? > > Yes, you're missing a huge point. Nope. > A NV4x/R3xx is the minimum to run Vista in _legacy_ GDI/Explorer mode. > I.e., it runs _much_slower_ to show the _exact_same_ as you have > with XP > already! You're _not_ using the new Avalon system at all. I know that, but it is at least enough to run the darn thing, which is all most people (who aren't interested/willing to pay for a whole new POS) want. -- Damien McKenna, husband, father, geek. damien@mc-kenna.com - http://www.mc-kenna.com/ From hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com Thu Jun 8 16:43:53 2006 From: hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com (William Warren) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_=5BPc=5FSupport=5D_Re=3A_=5BOT=5D_?= =?windows-1252?Q?One_more_time_=85_Windows_Vista_system__?= =?windows-1252?Q?requirements?= In-Reply-To: <165A6B23-C543-4DA9-AA81-8A525ADDFF08@mc-kenna.com> References: <200606071155.11047.fmiller@lightlink.com> <1149761465.5789.7.camel@P-733.mwmcmlln> <1149774613.10388.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <0586A888-E463-4CD1-8695-CF493184D385@thelimucompany.com> <1149792313.10388.36.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <165A6B23-C543-4DA9-AA81-8A525ADDFF08@mc-kenna.com> Message-ID: <44888C09.6000708@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> Of course you can run a linux distro or even a Mac which with older technology(ie mac osx first version) had the features vista is trying to do now but with much cheaper hardware. Vista is a horrible kludge and correct me if i am wrong but despite MS's protests otherwise vista is nothing but a reskin of xp which is a reskin of 2k which is a reskinned nt. Yes they have mad echanges but the very core is still nt based. Damien McKenna wrote: > On Jun 8, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Bryan J. Smith wrote: >> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:52 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote: >>> You said yourself that a DirectX9-compatible video card will work, so >>> basically anything from a Radeon 9200 onwards >> >> Er, I think you mean Radeon 9500 (R300-series), the 9200 is the same >> series as the 8500 (R200-series). > > My mistake, the 9200 is only DX8.1. The 9550 can be have for $45 off > NewEgg, ditto for the Geforce 5000/6000 series which are DX9 compatible. > >>> or a Geforce 6000 series onwards, which puts the price well under $100 >>> for even new cards. Even $150 will give people plenty of video >>> speed. Heck, you can even get those cards in PCI flavors for people >>> without AGP or PCI-e slots. Am I missing something? >> >> Yes, you're missing a huge point. > > Nope. > >> A NV4x/R3xx is the minimum to run Vista in _legacy_ GDI/Explorer mode. >> I.e., it runs _much_slower_ to show the _exact_same_ as you have with XP >> already! You're _not_ using the new Avalon system at all. > > I know that, but it is at least enough to run the darn thing, which is > all most people (who aren't interested/willing to pay for a whole new > POS) want. > > --Damien McKenna, husband, father, geek. > damien@mc-kenna.com - http://www.mc-kenna.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Pc_support mailing list > Pc_support@matrixlist.com > http://lists.matrixlist.com/mailman/listinfo/pc_support > -- My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician) Linux user #322099 Machines: 206822 256638 276825 http://counter.li.org/ From hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com Thu Jun 8 18:41:38 2006 From: hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com (William Warren) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] server build In-Reply-To: <1149737005.2431.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <447F4F4C.5050809@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> <20060601201429.8c2e1747.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> <1149642568.2471.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060606214305.7c1f990a.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> <1149737005.2431.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4488A7A2.1090503@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> I am curious. Does IPMI allow the same type of console redirection access the dell drac 4 does? Thomas Carlson wrote: > Well, work wanted me to watch the budget and this wasn't a server, so I > picked at Furia Value Workstation... > > http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=90383 > > I'd have to check, but I think I bought it before Brian posted ( Thanks for the great info! :) ) his > thoughts on the AM2 Socket based motherboards which look really good. > > Cheers, > > Thomas > > On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 21:43 -0400, Austin Denyer wrote: >> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:09:28 -0700, Thomas Carlson >> wrote: >>> I like monarch, since the company is very linux friendly. However, I >>> agree their shipping time for a full system is quite long. >> We would use them a lot more if they could get their system turnaround >> half-way decent. >> >> We just ordered another rackmount server. I would have loved to have >> given the $5k to Monarch (and got an Opteron server), but when their >> delivery is close to 20 days (even with "Hot Rush" delivery!) it's hard >> to justify when Dell can get us a server (albeit Xeon) in 3 days - even >> though Monarch were cheaper (and that's after we beat Dell down $2k from >> $7k)... >> >>> I ordered a machine last week and will report back on how quick it >>> arrives. >> I'm sure you'll love it when it finally arrives. >> >> Out of interest, what system did you get? >> >> Regards, >> Ozz. >> _______________________________________________ >> Pc_support mailing list >> Pc_support@matrixlist.com >> http://lists.matrixlist.com/mailman/listinfo/pc_support > > _______________________________________________ > Pc_support mailing list > Pc_support@matrixlist.com > http://lists.matrixlist.com/mailman/listinfo/pc_support > -- My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician) Linux user #322099 Machines: 206822 256638 276825 http://counter.li.org/ From b.j.smith at ieee.org Thu Jun 8 21:44:48 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: [OT] One more time =?windows-1251?Q?=85?= Windows Vista system requirements In-Reply-To: <165A6B23-C543-4DA9-AA81-8A525ADDFF08@mc-kenna.com> References: <200606071155.11047.fmiller@lightlink.com> <1149761465.5789.7.camel@P-733.mwmcmlln> <1149774613.10388.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <0586A888-E463-4CD1-8695-CF493184D385@thelimucompany.com> <1149792313.10388.36.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <165A6B23-C543-4DA9-AA81-8A525ADDFF08@mc-kenna.com> Message-ID: <1149817488.10388.58.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 15:41 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote: > I know that, but it is at least enough to run the darn thing, which > is all most people (who aren't interested/willing to pay for a whole > new POS) want. Huh? Just because it "runs" doesn't mean it's usable. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" From hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com Thu Jun 8 22:55:11 2006 From: hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com (William Warren) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_=5BPc=5FSupport=5D_Re=3A_=5BOT=5D_?= =?windows-1252?Q?One_more_time_=85_Windows_Vista_system__?= =?windows-1252?Q?requirements?= In-Reply-To: <1149817488.10388.58.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <200606071155.11047.fmiller@lightlink.com> <1149761465.5789.7.camel@P-733.mwmcmlln> <1149774613.10388.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <0586A888-E463-4CD1-8695-CF493184D385@thelimucompany.com> <1149792313.10388.36.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <165A6B23-C543-4DA9-AA81-8A525ADDFF08@mc-kenna.com> <1149817488.10388.58.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <4488E30F.5090603@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> you can put xp on a p-2 350..it runs..but it's not truly useable..:) Bryan J. Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 15:41 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote: >> I know that, but it is at least enough to run the darn thing, which >> is all most people (who aren't interested/willing to pay for a whole >> new POS) want. > > Huh? Just because it "runs" doesn't mean it's usable. > > -- My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician) Linux user #322099 Machines: 206822 256638 276825 http://counter.li.org/ From b.j.smith at ieee.org Fri Jun 9 08:03:40 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: [OT] One more time =?windows-1251?Q?=85?= Windows Vista system requirements In-Reply-To: <4488E30F.5090603@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> References: <200606071155.11047.fmiller@lightlink.com> <1149761465.5789.7.camel@P-733.mwmcmlln> <1149774613.10388.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <0586A888-E463-4CD1-8695-CF493184D385@thelimucompany.com> <1149792313.10388.36.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <165A6B23-C543-4DA9-AA81-8A525ADDFF08@mc-kenna.com> <1149817488.10388.58.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4488E30F.5090603@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> Message-ID: <1149854621.10388.74.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 22:55 -0400, William Warren wrote: > you can put xp on a p-2 350..it runs..but it's not truly useable..:) That's now Vista on a 1GHz machine with nVidia (NV44) GeForce 6100 integrated video that just came out mid-last year. And that's just so it looks and works like XP today, although slower -- and does _not_ provide the new Avalon features. Even my spring 2001 era P3 850MHz, 256MB with nVidia (NV11) GeForce Go Mobile 16MB notebook will run the Xgl window manager at 1024x768. Nothing great, but it works. A MacOS X notebook with equivalent video/power will run QuartzExtreme better. You've gotta have at least a late 2004-era GeForce 6800+, or 2005-era GeForce 6600+ to get _any_ Avalon features. That's a "mark-up" of 3 generations -- eight times (8x) -- in performance over QuartzExtreme or Xgl. Avalon is designed for one thing, not to improve efficiency, but to force people to buy new computers. And there's _no_ incentive for Microsoft to address that -- because they are not only controlling the PC OEM channels, but the superstore distribution now as well. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" From ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net Fri Jun 9 19:41:27 2006 From: ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net (Austin Denyer (Ozz)) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Cisco Password Recovery. Message-ID: <20060609194127.fe0bb0d9.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> Hi Guys. Here's one for all you Cisco Gurus... I have just aquired a Cisco Catalyst WS-C2924M-XL. Unfortunately I do not have any passwords for it. So, how do I reset the passwords? I have physical access to the box - I am minicom'd into the console port as I type. I've GTFW and not found anything useful yet. Any pointers gratefully received. Regards, Ozz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060609/0d6467b4/attachment.bin From jasonb at edseek.com Sat Jun 10 13:44:03 2006 From: jasonb at edseek.com (Jason Boxman) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] UPS AVR, appliances, activates? Message-ID: <200606101344.04123.jasonb@edseek.com> I hadn't seen this before, but where I live now, apparently, my UPS' AVR kicks in when I'm running several appliances simultaneously that draw a lot of power. (The UPS makes a loud hum, which it only does under the above circumstance, so I am assuming it is AVR.) Is there any particular reason why this happens? Could it be the wiring? I imagine the washer and drier are on different circuits than my equipment upstairs. Thanks. -- Jason Boxman http://edseek.com/ - Linux and FOSS stuff From mflang at bellsouth.net Sat Jun 10 15:07:13 2006 From: mflang at bellsouth.net (Max F Lang) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Cisco Password Recovery. In-Reply-To: <20060609194127.fe0bb0d9.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> References: <20060609194127.fe0bb0d9.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> Message-ID: <200606101507.13289.mflang@bellsouth.net> On Friday 09 June 2006 19:41, Austin Denyer wrote: > I have just aquired a Cisco Catalyst WS-C2924M-XL. Unfortunately I do > not have any passwords for it. You did check out Cisco's website? That's in the Catalyst 2900XL series. [long url follows...] http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps628/products_password_recovery09186a0080094184.shtml or start searching from here: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1831/products_tech_note09186a00801746e6.shtml Hope this helps. From ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net Sat Jun 10 18:40:27 2006 From: ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net (Austin Denyer (Ozz)) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Cisco Password Recovery. In-Reply-To: <200606101507.13289.mflang@bellsouth.net> References: <20060609194127.fe0bb0d9.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> <200606101507.13289.mflang@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <20060610184027.b163b350.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:07:13 -0400, Max F Lang wrote: > > On Friday 09 June 2006 19:41, Austin Denyer wrote: > > I have just aquired a Cisco Catalyst WS-C2924M-XL. Unfortunately I do > > not have any passwords for it. > > You did check out Cisco's website? That's in the Catalyst 2900XL series. Thanks. I did try Cisco's site but must have been entering the wrong magic words for the search. I followed the instructions in the docs and did manage to reset the password. For some reason I've introduced another problem. When I use the '?' for help, some commands don't work when they should. For example: sw-2924>set % Type "set ?" for a list of subcommands sw-2924>set ? % Unrecognized command sw-2924> Any ideas? Regards, Ozz. (Very new to Cisco...) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060610/f00f810e/attachment.bin From pberry2 at cfl.rr.com Sat Jun 10 18:49:28 2006 From: pberry2 at cfl.rr.com (patrick) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:49 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] UPS AVR, appliances, activates? In-Reply-To: <200606101344.04123.jasonb@edseek.com> References: <200606101344.04123.jasonb@edseek.com> Message-ID: <448B4C78.4060301@cfl.rr.com> Jason Boxman wrote: >I hadn't seen this before, but where I live now, apparently, my UPS' AVR kicks >in when I'm running several appliances simultaneously that draw a lot of >power. (The UPS makes a loud hum, which it only does under the above >circumstance, so I am assuming it is AVR.) > >Is there any particular reason why this happens? Could it be the wiring? I >imagine the washer and drier are on different circuits than my equipment >upstairs. > >Thanks. > > > The UPS senses the AC voltage and kicks in at somewhere around 105 VAC! Appliances with large motors and cooling equipment, refrigerators, freezers, draw larger current upon start-up. The voltage sags from the normal 115, 117,120, (I average 125VAC in Central Florida - but, I get about 8 sags each day!). My dozen UPS's click over, then back, giving a short alarm, on average, about 8 times each day. Friday, we all lost power for an hour. That is the strip mall, the huge car dealership , thirty other local big businesses, and over 1,000 homes! The sub-station lost a transformer, and, since it's replacement on Friday, the power has stabilized! I bought a new 'kill-a-watt' that has a computer in it, and displays/records the voltages, equipment needs for items plugged into it (up to 1500 watts) so I get some clues to all these events. I discovered also, that weak circuit breakers can do imicro trips, due to heat, and my older panel had two deficits. One was that it was a Federal Pacific Stab-Lok unit, that is banned in some 7 states as a total fire hazard. Secondly, the breakers were over 26 years old, and, some were welded shut internally, while others were humming... and the breakers cost $37 for a 15 amp single pole, vs. $3.65 for a GE 15 or 20 amp! I would guess that FP is paying off the 31 Class Action Lawsuits it lost in 31 states and territories. I replaced the panel for $128 in parts, plus, about 4 hours of labor. If you have no clue about AC power (I taught it in the Air Force), plus, you aren't the OWNER of your home, you will need to pay a certified electrical contractor for the work. Two to four hours is my guess for time. From ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net Sat Jun 10 19:36:41 2006 From: ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net (Austin Denyer (Ozz)) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] UPS AVR, appliances, activates? In-Reply-To: <448B4C78.4060301@cfl.rr.com> References: <200606101344.04123.jasonb@edseek.com> <448B4C78.4060301@cfl.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060610193641.af47d929.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:49:28 -0400, patrick wrote: > > The UPS senses the AC voltage and kicks in at somewhere around 105 VAC! > Appliances with large motors and cooling equipment, refrigerators, > freezers, draw larger current upon start-up. The voltage sags from the > normal 115, 117,120, (I average 125VAC in Central Florida - but, I get > about 8 sags each day!). That's one of the things I miss about European electrical systems. When everything runs at 220V you don't suffer from the lights dimming when you strike up the vacuum cleaner... I must admit I got caught out when I first came here. I was so used to being able to load the household power outlets to 3KW... #;-D Regards, Ozz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060610/85689d15/attachment.bin From jasonb at edseek.com Sat Jun 10 21:21:28 2006 From: jasonb at edseek.com (Jason Boxman) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] UPS AVR, appliances, activates? In-Reply-To: <448B4C78.4060301@cfl.rr.com> References: <200606101344.04123.jasonb@edseek.com> <448B4C78.4060301@cfl.rr.com> Message-ID: <200606102121.28728.jasonb@edseek.com> On Saturday 10 June 2006 18:49, patrick wrote: > Jason Boxman wrote: > >I hadn't seen this before, but where I live now, apparently, my UPS' AVR > > kicks in when I'm running several appliances simultaneously that draw a > > lot of power. (The UPS makes a loud hum, which it only does under the > > above circumstance, so I am assuming it is AVR.) > > > >Is there any particular reason why this happens? Could it be the wiring? > > I imagine the washer and drier are on different circuits than my > > equipment upstairs. > > > >Thanks. > > The UPS senses the AC voltage and kicks in at somewhere around 105 VAC! > Appliances with large motors and cooling equipment, refrigerators, > freezers, draw larger current upon start-up. The voltage sags from the > normal 115, 117,120, (I average 125VAC in Central Florida - but, I get > about 8 sags each day!). But in my case, the UPS never actually trips. It just makes that loud humming noise it tends to make when it's charging or discharging. I only do the wash on weekends on this symptom only occurs on the weekends, so I assume the increased power usage is the trigger. It's strange, though. -- Jason Boxman http://edseek.com/ - Linux and FOSS stuff From dave at dgnal.net Sun Jun 11 22:36:38 2006 From: dave at dgnal.net (David Simmons) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Off Computer Storage Message-ID: <4735.71.252.176.10.1150079798.squirrel@qtmail.dgnal.net> The line of progression: create machine -> do video work -> need more space -> add hard drives -> machine too hot -> add fans -> livable, but loud -> now need more space Guys....I've come to the point where I realize that I'd like to set up a NAS type system for a few boxes to share space/files (probably not concurrently). Environments will be mixed - Windows/Linux clients. Thanks to Bryan, I'm familiar with the need to use some of the newer bus structures to really gain Gigabit network speeds - BUT, can you attain almost local speed with hard-drives? What about if using SATA-II drive in host machine? Any well known comparison charts? (googled, but was overwhelmed with product rather than raw comparison data). Say that you can attain fairly good speeds in transfer (any recommendations on good network cards? haven't really seen - other than built on - cards for PCI-E?) - What protocal would you use? SMB/NFS/SSHFS/?? - Remember that is video work, so need as much as possible! Thanks - Dave From b.j.smith at ieee.org Mon Jun 12 07:05:43 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Off Computer Storage -- Near-line storage ... In-Reply-To: <4735.71.252.176.10.1150079798.squirrel@qtmail.dgnal.net> References: <4735.71.252.176.10.1150079798.squirrel@qtmail.dgnal.net> Message-ID: <1150110343.20685.218.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 21:36 -0500, David Simmons wrote: > The line of progression: > create machine -> do video work -> need more space -> add hard drives -> > machine too hot -> add fans -> livable, but loud -> now need more space > Guys....I've come to the point where I realize that I'd like to set up a > NAS type system for a few boxes to share space/files (probably not > concurrently). Environments will be mixed - Windows/Linux clients. I hope you saw my article "Dissecting Virtual Tape Libraries" last fall: http://www.samag.com/documents/sam0509a/ It dissects how near-line disk is a very capable solution for backups (including augmenting off-line tape), which also applies to near-line storage in general. > Thanks to Bryan, I'm familiar with the need to use some of the newer bus > structures to really gain Gigabit network speeds - BUT, can you attain > almost local speed with hard-drives? Yes! Especially if you use a dedicated GbE "out-of-band/storage" network with 9000 byte jumbo frames (to avoid having to setup VLANs and buy more expensive switches). > What about if using SATA-II drive in host machine? Makes *0* difference from SATA/150 or ATA/133. Most drives can't surpass a 75MiBps sustained DTR. In actuality, all most SATA2/300 drives mean is that they have a native SATA interface. Most SATA/150 drives are using SATA/150 to ATA/133 adapters internally, including directly on the PCB of the hard drive. Makes _maybe_ a 1-2% difference overall. > Say that you can attain fairly good speeds in transfer (any > recommendations on good network cards? haven't really seen - other than > built on - cards for PCI-E?) RAID-10 would be most ideal for write performance overall. If you're reading far more than writing, then RAID-5 if you don't like the inefficiency of RAID-10. If you're just writing from 1-2 systems, RAID-3 would be most ideal. Areca has its ARC-12xx series for PCIe x8. Cost is $400+. If you have PCI64/PCI-X, the NetCell SR5000 series is high performance fixed 5-disc configuration RAID-3 (what they call "RAID-XL"). Cost is a more affordable $200+. Can't recommend 3Ware except for the 7000/8000/9500S series PCI64/PCI-X, and you only want to use RAID-10 for those. I'm still waiting on 3Ware to produce a stable, newer 9000 series with RAID-5 performance -- the 9500S is basically a 7000/8000 from a RAID-10 standpoint. > - What protocal would you use? SMB/NFS/SSHFS/?? NFS! 8KiB UDP blocks go 1:1 into 9000 byte Jumbo frames. You can also rebuild the kernel with 32KiB blocks for even better performance, but _always_ use 9000 byte Jumbo frames for it. > - Remember that is video work, so need as much as possible! Again, RAID-10 or RAID-5. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- Illegal Immigration = "Representation Without Taxation" From b.j.smith at ieee.org Tue Jun 13 02:42:48 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Flipped MicroATX design ... Message-ID: <1150180968.26373.10.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> First time I've seen this in a MicroATX. Cooler Master RC-541 series: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811119088 CPU at bottom, slots above (with fansink facing up), etc... There's even room for 2 outtake and 1 intake (right in the mid-section so it blows to the slots) fans. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From wam at HiWAAY.net Tue Jun 13 07:29:29 2006 From: wam at HiWAAY.net (William A. Mahaffey III) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Flipped MicroATX design ... In-Reply-To: <1150180968.26373.10.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <1150180968.26373.10.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <448EA199.5090705@HiWAAY.net> Bryan J. Smith wrote: >First time I've seen this in a MicroATX. >Cooler Master RC-541 series: >http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811119088 > >CPU at bottom, slots above (with fansink facing up), etc... There's >even room for 2 outtake and 1 intake (right in the mid-section so it >blows to the slots) fans. > > Neat. Do they (Coolermaster) or someone else make one like this in full ATX ? TIA .... -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton From b.j.smith at ieee.org Tue Jun 13 08:34:36 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Flipped MicroATX design ... -- Flipped ATX designs In-Reply-To: <448EA199.5090705@HiWAAY.net> References: <1150180968.26373.10.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <448EA199.5090705@HiWAAY.net> Message-ID: <1150202076.26373.25.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 06:29 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > Neat. Do they (Coolermaster) or someone else make one like this in full > ATX ? TIA .... One better ... I already blogged some last fall ... "Flipped ATX Cases Gone Mainstream" [2005-10-08] http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2005/10/flipped-atx-cases-gone-mainstream.html They have 120mm intake and 120mm outtake fans that go directly over the CPU area, which is at the bottom. They start at $80+ (Aerocool Spiral Galaxies) and I highly recommend the design -- especially for dual-processor. The only thing I'd add is a cut-out for a 92mm outtake fan near the hard drives. I don't know why they didn't do this on the base model -- it really needs the cooling in the hard drive area (it's only weakness). -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From whittake at sbaflorida.com Tue Jun 13 13:46:05 2006 From: whittake at sbaflorida.com (Homer Whittaker) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Flipped MicroATX design ... -- Flipped ATX designs In-Reply-To: <1150202076.26373.25.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <1150180968.26373.10.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <448EA199.5090705@HiWAAY.net> <1150202076.26373.25.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <1150220765.1875.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 08:34 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 06:29 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > > Neat. Do they (Coolermaster) or someone else make one like this in full > > ATX ? TIA .... > > One better ... I already blogged some last fall ... > "Flipped ATX Cases Gone Mainstream" [2005-10-08] > http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2005/10/flipped-atx-cases-gone-mainstream.html > > They have 120mm intake and 120mm outtake fans that go directly over the > CPU area, which is at the bottom. They start at $80+ (Aerocool Spiral > Galaxies) and I highly recommend the design -- especially for > dual-processor. > > The only thing I'd add is a cut-out for a 92mm outtake fan near the hard > drives. I don't know why they didn't do this on the base model -- it > really needs the cooling in the hard drive area (it's only weakness). > > I do not understand why you all do not just take the covers of your machines and let the ac in the room cool them off. I have three boxes, actually four counting my wife's. All of them are without covers and to date (with all toes and legs crossed) have not lost one due to heat. >From an engineering point of view which is best, covers with lots of fans, or open with one good sized fan? From b.j.smith at ieee.org Tue Jun 13 16:23:11 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Flipped MicroATX design ... -- Flipped ATX designs In-Reply-To: <1150220765.1875.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1150180968.26373.10.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <448EA199.5090705@HiWAAY.net> <1150202076.26373.25.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1150220765.1875.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1150230192.26373.57.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 13:46 -0400, Homer Whittaker wrote: > I do not understand why you all do not just take the covers of your > machines and let the ac in the room cool them off. I have three boxes, > actually four counting my wife's. All of them are without covers and to > date (with all toes and legs crossed) have not lost one due to heat. > From an engineering point of view which is best, covers with lots of > fans, or open with one good sized fan? Problems include: 1. EMF generation, EMI suseptibility (especially if you put an AC-powered fan next to the system) 2. Poor airflow over key components (you need airflow!) 3. Dust I've been using systems with 92-120mm intake-outtake fans for some time and they keep the components cool. My favorite designs include: - MicroATX Cube (120mm outtake fan over CPU, PS outtake fan over slots) - Flipped ATX Design (dual-120mm intake-outtake for CPUs) -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From hubbardjw at charter.net Wed Jun 14 00:12:28 2006 From: hubbardjw at charter.net (Jerry Hubbard) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] TrueCrypt Message-ID: <448F8CAC.2060907@charter.net> Has anyone here used TrueCrypt? Just played the http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm episode 41. It sounds good, but you guys have insights most do not. It was also discussed on the local Unix list in St. Louis, but just in passing. -- Jerry Hubbard hubbardjw@charter.net From damien at mc-kenna.com Wed Jun 14 07:59:04 2006 From: damien at mc-kenna.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] TrueCrypt In-Reply-To: <448F8CAC.2060907@charter.net> References: <448F8CAC.2060907@charter.net> Message-ID: <20060614075904.euvqqr2e0thus84w@www.mc-kenna.com> Quoting Jerry Hubbard : > Has anyone here used TrueCrypt? Yes. It was easy to use and their feature list is pretty inspiring. Here's hoping they do an OSX version soon, an open standard to replace DMG would be wonderful. -- Damien McKenna, Husband, Father, Geek http://www.mc-kenna.com/ - damien@mc-kenna.com From pberry2 at cfl.rr.com Wed Jun 14 08:03:56 2006 From: pberry2 at cfl.rr.com (Patrick) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Off Computer Storage In-Reply-To: <4735.71.252.176.10.1150079798.squirrel@qtmail.dgnal.net> References: <4735.71.252.176.10.1150079798.squirrel@qtmail.dgnal.net> Message-ID: <448FFB2C.6070808@cfl.rr.com> David Simmons wrote: > The line of progression: > > create machine -> do video work -> need more space -> add hard drives -> > machine too hot -> add fans -> livable, but loud -> now need more space > > Guys....I've come to the point where I realize that I'd like to set up a > NAS type system for a few boxes to share space/files (probably not > concurrently). Environments will be mixed - Windows/Linux clients. > > Thanks to Bryan, I'm familiar with the need to use some of the newer bus > structures to really gain Gigabit network speeds - BUT, can you attain > almost local speed with hard-drives? What about if using SATA-II drive in > host machine? Any well known comparison charts? (googled, but was > overwhelmed with product rather than raw comparison data). > > Say that you can attain fairly good speeds in transfer (any > recommendations on good network cards? haven't really seen - other than > built on - cards for PCI-E?) - What protocal would you use? > SMB/NFS/SSHFS/?? - Remember that is video work, so need as much as > possible! > > Thanks - Dave > > _______________________________________________ > Pc_support mailing list > Pc_support@matrixlist.com > http://lists.matrixlist.com/mailman/listinfo/pc_support > > > 500Gb WD external firewire/USB drives are only $279 at Costco... 300Gb runs $199, 120Gb is $149, and, I bought an A101 external case (empty) with firewire/usb for $29.99 at Cheapguys... Then, I put in a 80 Gb drive already on hand (refurbished by using GPartEd). External drives are very handy, transportable... Have some clients with dual 250 Gb drives internally, and they are using the external 500Gb and new 750Gb drives, for their massive video editing. (wildlife filming for National Geo, PBS, Discorery Channel...) and storage. From justinkz at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 10:54:20 2006 From: justinkz at gmail.com (Justin M. Keyes) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Best virtual machine for Intel Mac OS? Message-ID: <53b562310606140754h416c33bap9d8bf539a39cc051@mail.gmail.com> I am getting a MacBook (Intel core duo), and I am going to need a virtual machine to run Windows. I refuse to dual boot, I hate it. So, I wonder which virtual machine for Mac OS on Intel, runs the fastest, in your opinion? Has anyone tried Parallels? http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/mac/ Has anyone tried Guest PC on Mac/Intel (not PowerPC)? http://www.lismoresystems.com/en/ Has anyone tried Microsoft Virtual PC on Mac/Intel (not PowerPC)? Does anyone recommend any other hardware virtualization for Mac/Intel? Apparently, Parellels is supposed to be more performant, because it doesn't emulate x86. Does that mean that MS Virtual PC, on an intel Mac, would be run under Rosetta, *and* have to emulate x86? Does Guest PC run under Rosetta? My main concern is performance. Thanks for your help! -- Justin M. Keyes From dmckenna at thelimucompany.com Wed Jun 14 11:38:17 2006 From: dmckenna at thelimucompany.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Best virtual machine for Intel Mac OS? In-Reply-To: <53b562310606140754h416c33bap9d8bf539a39cc051@mail.gmail.com> References: <53b562310606140754h416c33bap9d8bf539a39cc051@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Quite simply, any emulation system that is PowerPC native is going to end up running two CPU emulation layers: Rosetta and then the application's x86 emulation layer. Because of this you are best to go with Parallels until the rest of the market catches up. BTW there is a strong rumor that OSX 10.5 will bundle a concurrent virtualization system, similar to Parallels. -- Damien McKenna - Web Developer - dmckenna@thelimucompany.com The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014 #include From justinkz at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 11:50:51 2006 From: justinkz at gmail.com (Justin M. Keyes) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Best virtual machine for Intel Mac OS? In-Reply-To: References: <53b562310606140754h416c33bap9d8bf539a39cc051@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53b562310606140850y7640a8bbgf999852f7126a86e@mail.gmail.com> On 6/14/06, Damien McKenna wrote: > Quite simply, any emulation system that is PowerPC native is going to > end up running two CPU emulation layers: Rosetta and then the > application's x86 emulation layer. Because of this you are best to > go with Parallels until the rest of the market catches up. Ok, thanks. > BTW there is a strong rumor that OSX 10.5 will bundle a concurrent > virtualization system, similar to Parallels. Interesting... thanks for the tip. I'll use parallels free beta, then decide if I should upgrade to 10.5. -- Justin M. Keyes From dave at dgnal.net Wed Jun 14 15:30:14 2006 From: dave at dgnal.net (David Simmons) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Best virtual machine for Intel Mac OS? In-Reply-To: <53b562310606140850y7640a8bbgf999852f7126a86e@mail.gmail.com> References: <53b562310606140754h416c33bap9d8bf539a39cc051@mail.gmail.com> <53b562310606140850y7640a8bbgf999852f7126a86e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56320.192.104.67.122.1150313414.squirrel@qtmail.dgnal.net> Anyone tried / looked at Apple's BootCamp: http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ From justinkz at gmail.com Wed Jun 14 15:23:58 2006 From: justinkz at gmail.com (Justin M. Keyes) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Best virtual machine for Intel Mac OS? In-Reply-To: <56320.192.104.67.122.1150313414.squirrel@qtmail.dgnal.net> References: <53b562310606140754h416c33bap9d8bf539a39cc051@mail.gmail.com> <53b562310606140850y7640a8bbgf999852f7126a86e@mail.gmail.com> <56320.192.104.67.122.1150313414.squirrel@qtmail.dgnal.net> Message-ID: <53b562310606141223q5149212fs11ee36f01bb5ede9@mail.gmail.com> On 6/14/06, David Simmons wrote: > Anyone tried / looked at Apple's BootCamp: > > http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ No. I don't like dual-booting. -- Justin M. Keyes From dave at dgnal.net Wed Jun 14 15:59:45 2006 From: dave at dgnal.net (David Simmons) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Best virtual machine for Intel Mac OS? In-Reply-To: <53b562310606141223q5149212fs11ee36f01bb5ede9@mail.gmail.com> References: <53b562310606140754h416c33bap9d8bf539a39cc051@mail.gmail.com> <53b562310606140850y7640a8bbgf999852f7126a86e@mail.gmail.com> <56320.192.104.67.122.1150313414.squirrel@qtmail.dgnal.net> <53b562310606141223q5149212fs11ee36f01bb5ede9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22101.192.104.67.222.1150315185.squirrel@qtmail.dgnal.net> >> Anyone tried / looked at Apple's BootCamp: >> >> http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ > > No. I don't like dual-booting. DUH! Sorry...I've been doing so much VMWare lately...and remembered something about Boot Camp...I just put the two together in my head...sorry for not doing my homework and being thorough! dave From damien at mc-kenna.com Thu Jun 15 10:11:08 2006 From: damien at mc-kenna.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] RAID cards comparison Message-ID: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1977007,00.asp -- Damien McKenna, husband, father, geek. damien@mc-kenna.com - http://www.mc-kenna.com/ From b.j.smith at ieee.org Fri Jun 16 09:28:30 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] [Fwd: [NTLUG:Announce] June meeting 6/17 @ 11am, A Simple Single Sign On Implementation Part 2] Message-ID: <1150464511.6698.21.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Looks like the NTLUG is actually doing some "real world" integration ... -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Low-traffic NTLUG announcement list Reply-To: Announce@ntlug.org To: announce@ntlug.org Subject: [NTLUG:Announce] June meeting 6/17 @ 11am, A Simple Single Sign On Implementation Part 2 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:08:58 -0500 The easiest way to turn a presentation into a two parter is by having a medical emergency during the middle of the presentation... So.. if you wanted to see the Single Sign On presentation in May... come to the June meeting... where hopefully I'll get through the whole things this time!! (description from last month's mail out) Many people do not work on an an ALL-Windows network anymore. Disruptive technologies like Linux are successfully penetrating the SMB markets in addition to the enterprise. However, likewise, one cannot say they work in an ALL-Linux or ALL-Unix or ALL- shop. Today's companies use many tools, including OS's, in order to to business. The presentation in May will focus on how to create a more seamless work environment across disparate Operating Systems. It focuses primarily on allowing a Windows XP client that is authenticated to a Windows Domain to reach Linux and/or Unix hosts without passwords, however seamlessness will also be shown (as much as it is possible) for clients using Linux/Unix. At the heart of this solution is Linux. Linux is the source of integration across disparate OS's. The presentation will cover how Linux is used to handle key infrastructure pieces to make the whole Single Sign On concept a reality. Directions: http://www.ntlug.org/directions.html Linux Installation Project 9am-ish Beginner's Training 10am Main Presentation (Simple Single Sign On) 11am Nokia has placed a restriction that no one under 18 is allowed at the meeting. Regards, Chris _______________________________________________ http://ntlug.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/announce -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net Fri Jun 16 19:47:45 2006 From: ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net (Austin Denyer (Ozz)) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] [Fwd: [NTLUG:Announce] June meeting 6/17 @ 11am, A Simple Single Sign On Implementation Part 2] In-Reply-To: <1150464511.6698.21.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <1150464511.6698.21.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <20060616194745.3f15e08d.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:28:30 -0400, "Bryan J. Smith" wrote: > > Looks like the NTLUG is actually doing some "real world" integration ... > > So.. if you wanted to see the Single Sign On presentation in May... > come to the June meeting... where hopefully I'll get through > the whole things this time!! Man - I sure wish I could attend that. I don't suppose the presentation will be posted on-line at some stage? Regards, Ozz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060616/dceda04e/attachment.bin From wam at HiWAAY.net Sat Jun 17 11:59:26 2006 From: wam at HiWAAY.net (William A. Mahaffey III) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Tape drive for small file server .... Message-ID: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> .... I am in the market for a tape drive for my smallish file server on my LAN. The box is an i865 (yuk !!!) P4, 2.4 GHz, 2 GB RAM, SuSE 9.2, box-stock (no recompiled kernels, no YAST updates, straight off the ROM). It has a 20 GB root drive, a 200 GB /home drive, & a 400 GB drive mounted as /work, all EIDE. I would like to backup parts of the /home & /work for offline storage. I have poked around on NewEgg & observe 2 apparently contemporary options, Sony AIT-1/2 & something called Ultrium1/2 or LTO-1/2/3 or LTX100/200G, all apparently used interchangably except for version #'s. I would like something with a net capacity in the 200 GB range (i.e. 80 GB native, 208 GB compressed is OK). NewEgg has media for most of these & their prices are acceptable. Would anyone have any 1st hand reasons to eliminate either 1 of these ? TIA -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton From b.j.smith at ieee.org Sat Jun 17 13:20:56 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Tape drive for small file server .... -- LTO (unless you have existing AIT or DLT assets) In-Reply-To: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> Message-ID: <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> [ Since this is a cross-post, don't forget to remove the list prefixes before you respond ] On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 10:59 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > .... I am in the market for a tape drive for my smallish file server on > my LAN. Is this home or work? I assume work? BTW, I don't know if I posted this in another thread before, but I really tried to talk about backup strategies -- on-line, off-line, remote, near-line, etc... -- and the inevitable evolution of the near-line (e.g., managed disk) + off-line (e.g., tape cartridge) into the "Virtual Tape Library" (although that's more for enterprise networks) in my 2005 September Sys Admin article: "Dissecting Virtual Tape Libraries" http://www.samag.com/documents/sam0509a/ People argue disk and take back and forth and there are advantages/disadvantages to each -- and they really complement each other today. In your case, probably not much, because I assume you're only backing up a single server and not other systems over the network. But I still want to point it out. It's really _not_ about "disk v. tape" but "where does disk fit in?" and "where does tape fit in?" The only time I've seen people argue otherwise is when they are doing bonehead things like backing up over the network in real-time. They argue backup window when you should _never_ use tape over the network, but near-line disk as at least an intermediate store, to address the backup window. Otherwise, such thinking is 1980s-era. > The box is an i865 (yuk !!!) P4, 2.4 GHz, 2 GB RAM, SuSE 9.2, > box-stock (no recompiled kernels, no YAST updates, straight off the > ROM). It has a 20 GB root drive, a 200 GB /home drive, & a 400 GB drive > mounted as /work, all EIDE. I would like to backup parts of the /home & > /work for offline storage. You should also consider near-line storage -- something that would not only let you recover data faster, but diff/buffer backups before they go to tape. Now for a single server, that's probably not as big of a deal. But as you start backing up more and more of your network, it's a good idea to have a few TBs of disk for "near-line" and then a tape cartridge that holds at least what a weeks worth of "critical, longer-term off-line." > I have poked around on NewEgg & observe 2 apparently contemporary > options, Sony AIT-1/2 Yes, Sony's 8mm format. Unless you have existing AIT assets, I recommend LTO instead. LTO is more reliable, faster and has the lowest price per GB -- drive and media. Same deal for HP/Quantum 1" DLT. Unless you have existing DLT assets, I recommend LTO instead. LTO isn't any more reliable than DLT (only IBM's proprietary format is more reliable), but it's faster and has the lowest price per GB -- again, drive and media. > & something called Ultrium1/2 or LTO-1/2/3 or LTX100/200G, > all apparently used interchangably except for version #'s. LTO (Linear Tape Open) began as a triple vendor standard -- HP, IBM and Tandberg (IIRC). It is now supported by almost a dozen firms, with half of them making drives. The popularity has driven _commodity_ cost and LTO will be around for a _long_time_ -- and 10-15 years** from now, you'll still be able to get a LTO-4 drive so you can read _all_ of your LTO-1/2/3/4 tapes. http://www.lto.org/ **NOTE: LTO, like DLT, is probably the most reliable, longest lasting "commodity" backup cartridge you can get. Only IBM's proprietary solutions (slower, less capacity, very costly) last longer (25+ years). HP calls their drives Ultrium and they are rated by a model in GBs that matches a 2.4:1 ratio. E.g., the LTO-3 drive (400GB native, 80MBps DTR) from HP is Ultrium 960 (960GB assuming 2.4:1 compression, 192MBps effective DTR). LTO has 3 current (LTO-1, 2 and 3) and 1 (LTO-4) planned standard: LTO-1 100GB, 20MBps DTR native -> 240GB, 48MBps DTR 2.4:1 LTO-2 200GB, 40MBps DTR native -> 480GB, 96MBps DTR 2.4:1 LTO-3 400GB, 80MBps DTR native -> 960GB, 192MBps DTR 2.4:1 LTO-4* 800GB, 160MBps DTR native -> 1.92TB, 384MBps DTR 2.4:1 *Planned (since day 1), which should be the last LTO-1 drives are under $1,000, possibly as low as $500 used/refurbished with cartridges just over $20 for 100GB native (240GB 2.4:1). Even LTO-1 is very, very difficult to best in performance, only newer Super DLT320/640 drives can do it -- but are still outclassed by newer LTO-3, let alone LTO-3, in DTR. I really consider the LTO-1 to be the "entry point." If you're not ready to spend $1K on drive + initial media, then you really shouldn't be considering tape. You really don't want to "buy a cheap drive" -- either spend the money for at least LTO-1 or consider non-tape. E.g., you'd be better off getting some 60-80GB notebook hard drives (which take G forces 10x better than desktop drives) for ~$100/each and putting them in small, external enclosures and using external SATA -- or if that's not an option, USB/FireWire (which is slower/less reliable). If you have more than 200GB to back up, really just go LTO-3. LTO-3 really isn't much more than LTO-2, with drives starting around $4,000 now. If you have a few backup servers to backup over the network, don't buy a couple of LTO-1 drives -- just get one LTO-3 drive and a dedicated backup server. Then diff to that system (which will also give you some near-line capability). The sheer DTR of LTO-3 is unbelievable -- 80MBps native -- and really maxes what Ultra160 SCSI can do. You can backup a TB in under 2 hours! LTO-4 will require Ultra320 SCSI, period, and will do a TB in under ahour! This means that with LTO, when doing network backups, you do _not_ want to be feeding them "real-time." *NEVER* do that. You want to be at least buffering and, better yet, maintaining a copy of systems on a dedicated "backup server" with the drive. Otherwise you will starve the drive of data. > I would like something with a net capacity in the 200 GB range > (i.e. 80 GB native, 208 GB compressed is OK). LTO-1 is definitely a great entry-point for a single server. You get 100GB, 20MBps native DTR. Actual capacity will be around 200-240GB, with an effective DTR of 40-48MBps. > NewEgg has media for most of these & their prices are acceptable. > Would anyone have any 1st hand reasons to eliminate either 1 of these ? > TIA If you have existing AIT or DLT drives, then you might want them. But if you don't have existing tape assets, just go LTO. Better, cheaper, faster and because of its commodity proliferation, you'll be able to get a LTO-4 drive some 10-15 years from now to read all your LTO-1 and latter tapes. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From b.j.smith at ieee.org Sat Jun 17 14:04:36 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Tape drive for small file server .... -- LTO-2 has come down from 2005 In-Reply-To: <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> Message-ID: <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 12:47 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > I work out of the house, so work. This box *is* the 'near-line' backup > box for others on the network, as well as providing HDD work space. I > want a tape backup (weekly or so) just for disaster recovery, will > keep the tapes offsite. The clutch point is I want *offsite* storage. So you already do near-line storage to disk, and now you just want off-line storage to tape. Excellent! > I do backup over my LAN, but at ~4:00 A.M., so no system activity > anywhere. Then I want to store those backups & other stuff offsite. But the backup is a diff and to near-line disk, not directly to tape, correct? You now just want to send that near-line disk copy to off-list tape, correct? If so, that's an excellent strategy. > Thanks, I have no legacy equipment to speak of, so the LTO sounds > good. I *think* I saw a LTO-2 on NewEgg yesterday for ~$775.00, I > might be mis-remembering, but it looked like a good solution. I actually don't see _any_ LTO on NewEgg. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong section though. Hold on ... Stupid NewEgg! They don't put "LTO" -- they _only_ put "brand names" like "Ultrium." Sigh. Wow! LTO-2 has indeed come downin price! $1,599 for this Quantum LTO-2 (200GB/40MBps, 480GB/92MBps at 2.4:1) at NewEgg.COM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16840113023 And here are 2 other, external Quantum LTO-2 options ... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16840113027 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16840113026 And here's the external Quantum LTO-3 for $3,499: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16840113033 They only see Quantum. Hmmm, Froogle might give you more options. Froogle is showing several IBM LTO-2 drives for $25-150 more. That's an option if you like the IBM name instead of Quantum. So it seems $1,600-1,750 is _now_ the LTO-2 price-point. LTO-1 has only dropped to $750-800, so it seems that LTO-2 is probably the better move now. LTO-1 is definitely no longer the popular entry-point, it's giving way to LTO-2. Sorry, I guess the last time I priced LTO-1 and LTO-2 was mid-2005. LTO-2 was still typically over $3,500 then, while LTO-1 had just dropped to $1,000. LTO-3 has dropped from $4,500 to almost $3,000 now as well. So it's virtually a linear relationship -- over $750 to over $1,500 to ovre $3,000 for LTO-1, 2 and 3. The larger capacity you can afford, the faster the DTR, so the better it is -- as long as you can feed it. If you go LTO-2, make sure you can give it a _sustained_ 100MBps DTR storage array! Otherwise you'll add unnecessary time and wear (although LTO claims it dynamically slows the linear tape speed when the feed DTR is constrained). Cartridge prices haven't dropped though. LTO-1 is $20+, LTO-2 is $45+ and LTO-3 is $90+. But if LTO-2 is becoming more popular as a drive, LTO-2 cartridges might drop to $30+ in the next year or so. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From b.j.smith at ieee.org Sun Jun 18 09:02:43 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Tape drive for small file server .... -- LTO (unless you have existing AIT or DLT assets) In-Reply-To: <4494BDC8.8050403@carter.cc> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494BDC8.8050403@carter.cc> Message-ID: <1150635763.2767.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 22:43 -0400, Carter Manucy wrote: > Just a couple of nit-picks here: > ... > LTO is only 1-generation fully (read/write) backward-compatible, Yes, I was aware of this, but thanx for pointing it out. LTO-2 drives can write LTO-1, but LTO-3 can't. > and 2 generations read-only compatible... Huh? Now that's news to me. I guess it's hard to say anything for sure at this point, because only LTO-3 is out and it reads back to LTO-1. Now I've been following LTO since near inception, but maybe they have changed their standards/promises as a result of product developments. I guess I should read the LTO site since it's been awhile. > eg, you can read/write to an LTO-2 > or LTO-3 tape in an LTO-3 drive, but not only read an LTO-1. LTO-4 > wouldn't be able to read LTO-1. > From http://www.lto.org/newsite/html/about_faqs.html > *Q12: What are the backward compatibility characteristics of the Ultrium > format?* > A12: The LTO Ultrium compatibility is defined with two concepts > demonstrating investment protection: > 1) An Ultrium drive is expected to read data from a cartridge in its own > generation and at least the two prior generations. Interesting. Okay, I guess that's changed since the original standard. Thanx for that update! Again, I guess I should have read the LTO site since it's been awhile -- I'm basing my statements on the original standard/promises plan. The original LTO standard was to be 4 generations -- with any newer generation being able to read any older, but only write 1 generation back. Again, actual developments have changed the standards/promises, especially with LTO-4 in development. > 2) An Ultrium drive is expected to write data to a cartridge in its own > generation and to a cartridge from the immediate prior generation in the > prior generation format. > Also, you'd mentioned: > There is actually a planned Gen 5 and Gen 6 now (1.6TB/360MBps and > 3.2TB/540MBps, respectively) Okay, now this makes more sense. I assume: 1. They've run into some issues reading LTO-1 with the LTO-4 prototypes, and 2. They've decided with the success and vendor support of LTO to continue with a 5th and 6th generation, hence 3. The new clarification on how many generations back can be read. Hmmm, from a longevity standpoint, this is a bit disturbing. If they've clarified this because they are, indeed, having issues with LTO-4 reading LTO-1 -- and there are 5th and 6th generations, then it makes you wonder if you should start with LTO-1. I had always recommended LTO-1 because I had believed (from the original design) that it would be always readable by the terminal generation (e.g., LTO-4) as in the original plan. I guess this is no longer the case so I have to re-evaluate that recommendation. Thanx for the update Carter! In any case, I need to blog this. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From pberry2 at cfl.rr.com Sun Jun 18 11:44:16 2006 From: pberry2 at cfl.rr.com (patrick) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Tape drive for small file server .... -- LTO (unless you have existing AIT or DLT assets) In-Reply-To: <1150635763.2767.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494BDC8.8050403@carter.cc> <1150635763.2767.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <449574D0.6070706@cfl.rr.com> Bryan J. Smith wrote: >On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 22:43 -0400, Carter Manucy wrote: > > >>Just a couple of nit-picks here: >> ... >>LTO is only 1-generation fully (read/write) backward-compatible, >> >> > >Yes, I was aware of this, but thanx for pointing it out. >LTO-2 drives can write LTO-1, but LTO-3 can't. > > > >>and 2 generations read-only compatible... >> >> > >Huh? Now that's news to me. I guess it's hard to say anything for sure >at this point, because only LTO-3 is out and it reads back to LTO-1. > >Now I've been following LTO since near inception, but maybe they have >changed their standards/promises as a result of product developments. I >guess I should read the LTO site since it's been awhile. > > > >>eg, you can read/write to an LTO-2 >>or LTO-3 tape in an LTO-3 drive, but not only read an LTO-1. LTO-4 >>wouldn't be able to read LTO-1. >>From http://www.lto.org/newsite/html/about_faqs.html >>*Q12: What are the backward compatibility characteristics of the Ultrium >>format?* >>A12: The LTO Ultrium compatibility is defined with two concepts >>demonstrating investment protection: >>1) An Ultrium drive is expected to read data from a cartridge in its own >>generation and at least the two prior generations. >> >> > >Interesting. Okay, I guess that's changed since the original standard. >Thanx for that update! Again, I guess I should have read the LTO site >since it's been awhile -- I'm basing my statements on the original >standard/promises plan. > >The original LTO standard was to be 4 generations -- with any newer >generation being able to read any older, but only write 1 generation >back. Again, actual developments have changed the standards/promises, >especially with LTO-4 in development. > > > >>2) An Ultrium drive is expected to write data to a cartridge in its own >>generation and to a cartridge from the immediate prior generation in the >>prior generation format. >>Also, you'd mentioned: >>There is actually a planned Gen 5 and Gen 6 now (1.6TB/360MBps and >>3.2TB/540MBps, respectively) >> >> > >Okay, now this makes more sense. I assume: > >1. They've run into some issues reading LTO-1 with the LTO-4 >prototypes, and > >2. They've decided with the success and vendor support of LTO to >continue with a 5th and 6th generation, hence > >3. The new clarification on how many generations back can be read. > >Hmmm, from a longevity standpoint, this is a bit disturbing. If they've >clarified this because they are, indeed, having issues with LTO-4 >reading LTO-1 -- and there are 5th and 6th generations, then it makes >you wonder if you should start with LTO-1. > >I had always recommended LTO-1 because I had believed (from the original >design) that it would be always readable by the terminal generation >(e.g., LTO-4) as in the original plan. I guess this is no longer the >case so I have to re-evaluate that recommendation. > >Thanx for the update Carter! In any case, I need to blog this. > > > > A funny thing... all your messages, Bryan, come to me with funny characters in the header. I am running Mozilla Thunderbird, in Kubuntu Breezy 5.10, loaded fresh today, but, was the same on another of my AMD Duron computers, yesterday... So, my fonts are interpreting something with an incorrect font character? It only inserts one or two alternate characters, usually in the spaces in the Subject area on the download list in my T Bird, never in the actual reader area... Funny thing, indeed, it seems to happen with only a couple folks, besides you. Both on the Leaplists, and the PC Support list. Can you shed some light, please? What can I do to get my fonts to read right? Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060618/7e76a635/attachment.html From b.j.smith at ieee.org Sun Jun 18 14:17:16 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Tape drive for small file server .... -- LTO (unless you have existing AIT or DLT assets) In-Reply-To: <449574D0.6070706@cfl.rr.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494BDC8.8050403@carter.cc> <1150635763.2767.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <449574D0.6070706@cfl.rr.com> Message-ID: <1150654636.2767.65.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 11:44 -0400, patrick wrote: > A funny thing... all your messages, Bryan, come to me with funny > characters in the header. I am running Mozilla Thunderbird, in > Kubuntu Breezy 5.10, loaded fresh today, but, was the same on another > of my AMD Duron computers, yesterday... I looked at my headers -- both before and after, didn't see anything weird. I then looked at my character set -- UTF-8. I guess I _could_ try sending UTF-7 instead, but I don't think it would make any difference. And since I save my folders to mbox format ... $ file Mail/PC_Support Mail/PC_Support: ISO-8859 English text > So, my fonts are interpreting something with an incorrect font > character? It only inserts one or two alternate characters, usually in > the spaces in the Subject area on the download list in my T Bird, > never in the actual reader area... > Funny thing, indeed, it seems to happen with only a couple folks, > besides you. Both on the Leaplists, and the PC Support list. > Can you shed some light, please? What can I do to get my fonts to > read right? Could be some character set support on your end. Could also be my Evolution settings. I've used the same home directory with Evolution since old version 1.4 on-ward. I remember there was a conversion at 2.0, but I'm now on 2.6.2. I might try blowing away my Evolution directory at some point (2 things work weird every since 2.2 or 2.4 IIRC) today and starting with a new directory. The filters and other settings are in XML files, so there's no issue there in re-creating most of the other settings. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From paulf at quillandmouse.com Sun Jun 18 18:52:39 2006 From: paulf at quillandmouse.com (Paul M Foster) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Tape drive for small file server .... -- LTO (unless you have existing AIT or DLT assets) In-Reply-To: <1150654636.2767.65.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494BDC8.8050403@carter.cc> <1150635763.2767.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <449574D0.6070706@cfl.rr.com> <1150654636.2767.65.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <4495D937.8090701@quillandmouse.com> Bryan J. Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 11:44 -0400, patrick wrote: >> A funny thing... all your messages, Bryan, come to me with funny >> characters in the header. I am running Mozilla Thunderbird, in >> Kubuntu Breezy 5.10, loaded fresh today, but, was the same on another >> of my AMD Duron computers, yesterday... > > I looked at my headers -- both before and after, didn't see anything > weird. I then looked at my character set -- UTF-8. I guess I _could_ > try sending UTF-7 instead, but I don't think it would make any > difference. > > And since I save my folders to mbox format ... > $ file Mail/PC_Support > Mail/PC_Support: ISO-8859 English text > >> So, my fonts are interpreting something with an incorrect font >> character? It only inserts one or two alternate characters, usually in >> the spaces in the Subject area on the download list in my T Bird, >> never in the actual reader area... >> Funny thing, indeed, it seems to happen with only a couple folks, >> besides you. Both on the Leaplists, and the PC Support list. >> Can you shed some light, please? What can I do to get my fonts to >> read right? > > Could be some character set support on your end. > > Could also be my Evolution settings. I've used the same home directory > with Evolution since old version 1.4 on-ward. I remember there was a > conversion at 2.0, but I'm now on 2.6.2. > > I might try blowing away my Evolution directory at some point (2 things > work weird every since 2.2 or 2.4 IIRC) today and starting with a new > directory. The filters and other settings are in XML files, so there's > no issue there in re-creating most of the other settings. > > FWIW, I have the same issue under Thunderbird 1.5, Debian unstable: odd characters in Bryan's headers. Actually, here's a hint: Thunderbird has a way of displaying the code for characters it can't display, so you can tell the hexadecimal for what they are. In this case, the character in question appears after the "LTO" in the subject, and appears to be x0009, which would be a tab character. But I'm guessing that Tbird can't display it because I don't have it set to display UTF8. -- Paul M. Foster From b.j.smith at ieee.org Sun Jun 18 19:06:37 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:50 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Looking for a Wireless AP ... Message-ID: <1150671997.2767.75.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Well, I made the chronically _stupid_ decision to upgrade my Linksys WAP11G's firmware. I was running with old 1.06 on a very aged design which was the last of the basic 1.0x firmwares and I was looking to enable some WPA goodies in the newer 3.0x firmware. In all honesty, it had been in a box for the last 2 years, and worked but I figured I should upgrade the firmware. I downloaded it from the 1.0 release page and verified the newer 3.0x firmware worked with such an old model. No return after power cycle -- should have known better. Holding in the reset button for 60 seconds to clear the settings didn't fare any better. So now I'm in the market for a new Wireless AP. Doesn't have to be anything great, I'm just going to use some older Prims2.0 11Mbps WLAN cards with it. Have IPCop, Blue Zone, w/OpenVPN plug-in, etc... so I'll just take any standard WAP with WEP, although WPA would be nice too. Kinda curious if anyone is buying the cheap wireless routers and turning them into WAP without the NAT. I don't need the NAT, that's what IPCop is for (hence why I bought the WAP11G before). Or if I should just go for a bridging WAP and not deal with the ones that have NAT and all those headaches. Again, not looking for anything fancy -- just the access point bridge functionality. I use IPCop and other things as a security appliance. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From wam at HiWAAY.net Sun Jun 18 19:26:24 2006 From: wam at HiWAAY.net (William A. Mahaffey III) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Tape drive for small file server .... -- LTO (unless you have existing AIT or DLT assets) In-Reply-To: <1150654636.2767.65.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494BDC8.8050403@carter.cc> <1150635763.2767.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <449574D0.6070706@cfl.rr.com> <1150654636.2767.65.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <4495E120.3090006@HiWAAY.net> Bryan J. Smith wrote: >On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 11:44 -0400, patrick wrote: > > >>A funny thing... all your messages, Bryan, come to me with funny >>characters in the header. I am running Mozilla Thunderbird, in >>Kubuntu Breezy 5.10, loaded fresh today, but, was the same on another >>of my AMD Duron computers, yesterday... >> >> > >I looked at my headers -- both before and after, didn't see anything >weird. I then looked at my character set -- UTF-8. I guess I _could_ >try sending UTF-7 instead, but I don't think it would make any >difference. > >And since I save my folders to mbox format ... > $ file Mail/PC_Support > Mail/PC_Support: ISO-8859 English text > > > >>So, my fonts are interpreting something with an incorrect font >>character? It only inserts one or two alternate characters, usually in >>the spaces in the Subject area on the download list in my T Bird, >>never in the actual reader area... >>Funny thing, indeed, it seems to happen with only a couple folks, >>besides you. Both on the Leaplists, and the PC Support list. >>Can you shed some light, please? What can I do to get my fonts to >>read right? >> >> > >Could be some character set support on your end. > >Could also be my Evolution settings. I've used the same home directory >with Evolution since old version 1.4 on-ward. I remember there was a >conversion at 2.0, but I'm now on 2.6.2. > >I might try blowing away my Evolution directory at some point (2 things >work weird every since 2.2 or 2.4 IIRC) today and starting with a new >directory. The filters and other settings are in XML files, so there's >no issue there in re-creating most of the other settings. > > > > FWIW, I note the same thing, *1* wierd character in most of your reply headers. No problema, of course, just observing .... -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060618/0ce92c73/attachment.html From b.j.smith at ieee.org Sun Jun 18 19:34:17 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Tape drive for small file server .... -- LTO (unless you have existing AIT or DLT assets) In-Reply-To: <4495E120.3090006@HiWAAY.net> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494BDC8.8050403@carter.cc> <1150635763.2767.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <449574D0.6070706@cfl.rr.com> <1150654636.2767.65.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4495E120.3090006@HiWAAY.net> Message-ID: <1150673657.2767.92.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 18:26 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > FWIW, I note the same thing, *1* wierd character in most of your reply > headers. No problema, of course, just observing .... Could be a limit to the length of a subject -- maybe a carriage return or tab. It could be the list adding it and not just Evolution. I have a tendency to send very long subject lines (especially when I append the subject). -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From pberry2 at cfl.rr.com Sun Jun 18 21:51:34 2006 From: pberry2 at cfl.rr.com (patrick) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] header characters In-Reply-To: <1150654636.2767.65.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494BDC8.8050403@carter.cc> <1150635763.2767.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <449574D0.6070706@cfl.rr.com> <1150654636.2767.65.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <44960326.5080006@cfl.rr.com> Bryan J. Smith wrote: >On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 11:44 -0400, patrick wrote: > > >>A funny thing... all your messages, Bryan, come to me with funny >>characters in the header. I am running Mozilla Thunderbird, in >>Kubuntu Breezy 5.10, loaded fresh today, but, was the same on another >>of my AMD Duron computers, yesterday... >> >> > >I looked at my headers -- both before and after, didn't see anything >weird. I then looked at my character set -- UTF-8. I guess I _could_ >try sending UTF-7 instead, but I don't think it would make any >difference. > >And since I save my folders to mbox format ... > $ file Mail/PC_Support > Mail/PC_Support: ISO-8859 English text > > > >>So, my fonts are interpreting something with an incorrect font >>character? It only inserts one or two alternate characters, usually in >>the spaces in the Subject area on the download list in my T Bird, >>never in the actual reader area... >>Funny thing, indeed, it seems to happen with only a couple folks, >>besides you. Both on the Leaplists, and the PC Support list. >>Can you shed some light, please? What can I do to get my fonts to >>read right? >> >> > >Could be some character set support on your end. > >Could also be my Evolution settings. I've used the same home directory >with Evolution since old version 1.4 on-ward. I remember there was a >conversion at 2.0, but I'm now on 2.6.2. > >I might try blowing away my Evolution directory at some point (2 things >work weird every since 2.2 or 2.4 IIRC) today and starting with a new >directory. The filters and other settings are in XML files, so there's >no issue there in re-creating most of the other settings. > > > > OK, now that I have received some more mail... I can see that AFTER I click upon the header to read it, many of the headers get one character that looks like a domino wiht four dots in it, on mail from many list members. So, yes, it looks like a glitch on my receiver, Thunderbird... Learning more, each day! Thanks! From pberry2 at cfl.rr.com Sun Jun 18 21:59:33 2006 From: pberry2 at cfl.rr.com (patrick) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Looking for a Wireless AP ... In-Reply-To: <1150671997.2767.75.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <1150671997.2767.75.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <44960505.9090106@cfl.rr.com> Bryan J. Smith wrote: >Well, I made the chronically _stupid_ decision to upgrade my Linksys >WAP11G's firmware. I was running with old 1.06 on a very aged design >which was the last of the basic 1.0x firmwares and I was looking to >enable some WPA goodies in the newer 3.0x firmware. In all honesty, it >had been in a box for the last 2 years, and worked but I figured I >should upgrade the firmware. > >I downloaded it from the 1.0 release page and verified the newer 3.0x >firmware worked with such an old model. No return after power cycle -- >should have known better. Holding in the reset button for 60 seconds to >clear the settings didn't fare any better. > >So now I'm in the market for a new Wireless AP. Doesn't have to be >anything great, I'm just going to use some older Prims2.0 11Mbps WLAN >cards with it. Have IPCop, Blue Zone, w/OpenVPN plug-in, etc... so I'll >just take any standard WAP with WEP, although WPA would be nice too. > >Kinda curious if anyone is buying the cheap wireless routers and turning >them into WAP without the NAT. I don't need the NAT, that's what IPCop >is for (hence why I bought the WAP11G before). Or if I should just go >for a bridging WAP and not deal with the ones that have NAT and all >those headaches. > >Again, not looking for anything fancy -- just the access point bridge >functionality. I use IPCop and other things as a security appliance. > > > > > I do not understand how it is not possible to get that thing up and running again... gotta be a way! From pberry2 at cfl.rr.com Sun Jun 18 22:01:41 2006 From: pberry2 at cfl.rr.com (patrick) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Tape drive for small file server .... -- LTO (unless you have existing AIT or DLT assets) In-Reply-To: <4495D937.8090701@quillandmouse.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494BDC8.8050403@carter.cc> <1150635763.2767.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <449574D0.6070706@cfl.rr.com> <1150654636.2767.65.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4495D937.8090701@quillandmouse.com> Message-ID: <44960585.5040107@cfl.rr.com> Paul M Foster wrote: > Bryan J. Smith wrote: > >> On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 11:44 -0400, patrick wrote: >> >>> A funny thing... all your messages, Bryan, come to me with funny >>> characters in the header. I am running Mozilla Thunderbird, in >>> Kubuntu Breezy 5.10, loaded fresh today, but, was the same on another >>> of my AMD Duron computers, yesterday... >> >> >> I looked at my headers -- both before and after, didn't see anything >> weird. I then looked at my character set -- UTF-8. I guess I _could_ >> try sending UTF-7 instead, but I don't think it would make any >> difference. >> >> And since I save my folders to mbox format ... >> $ file Mail/PC_Support >> Mail/PC_Support: ISO-8859 English text >> >>> So, my fonts are interpreting something with an incorrect font >>> character? It only inserts one or two alternate characters, usually in >>> the spaces in the Subject area on the download list in my T Bird, >>> never in the actual reader area... >>> Funny thing, indeed, it seems to happen with only a couple folks, >>> besides you. Both on the Leaplists, and the PC Support list. >>> Can you shed some light, please? What can I do to get my fonts to >>> read right? >> >> >> Could be some character set support on your end. >> >> Could also be my Evolution settings. I've used the same home directory >> with Evolution since old version 1.4 on-ward. I remember there was a >> conversion at 2.0, but I'm now on 2.6.2. >> >> I might try blowing away my Evolution directory at some point (2 things >> work weird every since 2.2 or 2.4 IIRC) today and starting with a new >> directory. The filters and other settings are in XML files, so there's >> no issue there in re-creating most of the other settings. >> >> > > FWIW, I have the same issue under Thunderbird 1.5, Debian unstable: odd > characters in Bryan's headers. Actually, here's a hint: Thunderbird has > a way of displaying the code for characters it can't display, so you can > tell the hexadecimal for what they are. In this case, the character in > question appears after the "LTO" in the subject, and appears to be > x0009, which would be a tab character. But I'm guessing that Tbird can't > display it because I don't have it set to display UTF8. > Ah! So! same funny character pops up for lots of folk, including you, in that same header, so I would agree with you... Thanks! From dmckenna at thelimucompany.com Mon Jun 19 11:21:32 2006 From: dmckenna at thelimucompany.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Tape drive for small file server .... -- LTO-2 has come down from 2005 In-Reply-To: <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> On Jun 17, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > I actually don't see _any_ LTO on NewEgg. Maybe I'm looking in the > wrong section though. Hold on ... Stupid NewEgg! They don't put > "LTO" > -- they _only_ put "brand names" like "Ultrium." Sigh. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Tape- Open) the "Ultrium" name is not a HP thing but rather a branding on the original entry-level LTO-1 to separate it from a two-reel LTO-1- based sibling dubbed "Accelis". As a result it is technically accurate to use Ultrium as a synonym for LTO. Also, the Wikipedia article says "An Ultrium drive is expected to read data from a cartridge in its own generation and at least the two prior generations", so as you suggested here's hoping that they manage to keep LTO-1-read compatibility for LTO-4. > Wow! LTO-2 has indeed come downin price! $1,599 for this Quantum > LTO-2 We got one for about $1699 from CDW fairly recently, I didn't think of double-checking for the latest prices at the time, but I'm not going to fuss now. $45 seems to be the norm for LTO-2 tapes too, several of the big name stores have them at that price. FYI we got probably that exact same drive and it works well. > If you go LTO-2, make sure you can give it a _sustained_ 100MBps DTR > storage array! Otherwise you'll add unnecessary time and wear > (although > LTO claims it dynamically slows the linear tape speed when the feed > DTR > is constrained). We back up about 70gb off the server that the LTO-2 drive is on and have another ~50gb from around the network to backup. Given that the file server doesn't have enough space for a local backup of everything (a RAID-5 with only space enough in the server for one more SCSI drive, and IDE is physically out of the question), what do you suggest for improving this? > But if LTO-2 is becoming more popular as a drive, LTO-2 cartridges > might drop to $30+ in the next year or so. That'd be good. -- Damien McKenna - Web Developer - dmckenna@thelimucompany.com The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014 #include From dmckenna at thelimucompany.com Mon Jun 19 11:24:06 2006 From: dmckenna at thelimucompany.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Tape drive for small file server .... -- LTO (unless you have existing AIT or DLT assets) In-Reply-To: <4495D937.8090701@quillandmouse.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494BDC8.8050403@carter.cc> <1150635763.2767.18.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <449574D0.6070706@cfl.rr.com> <1150654636.2767.65.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4495D937.8090701@quillandmouse.com> Message-ID: On Jun 18, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Paul M Foster wrote: > FWIW, I have the same issue under Thunderbird 1.5, Debian unstable: > odd > characters in Bryan's headers. Actually, here's a hint: Thunderbird > has > a way of displaying the code for characters it can't display, so > you can > tell the hexadecimal for what they are. In this case, the character in > question appears after the "LTO" in the subject, and appears to be > x0009, which would be a tab character. But I'm guessing that Tbird > can't > display it because I don't have it set to display UTF8. I've noticed this happen in Thunderbird when a subject line wraps onto a second line then gets tabbed in to be nicer to read in plaintext, I guess they want to try to avoid having an occasion where the first word at the start of the line has a colon or something. I'd personally consider it a bug in Thunderbird. -- Damien McKenna - Web Developer - dmckenna@thelimucompany.com The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014 #include From b.j.smith at ieee.org Mon Jun 19 14:49:13 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Tape drive for small file server .... -- LTO-2 has come down from 2005 In-Reply-To: <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> Message-ID: <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 11:21 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote: > According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Tape- > Open) the "Ultrium" name is not a HP thing but rather a branding on > the original entry-level LTO-1 to separate it from a two-reel LTO-1- > based sibling dubbed "Accelis". As a result it is technically > accurate to use Ultrium as a synonym for LTO. It's actually both. It's both a branding but also a differential from Accelis, also a brand name as well. There are some trademark issues with its use, whereas LTO is the defacto generic standard term. In other words, if you don't notice it in _many_ of my posts, I don't like to use "brand names" to describe technology, but the generic technology terms when applicable or appropriate. ;-> > We got one for about $1699 from CDW fairly recently, I didn't think > of double-checking for the latest prices at the time, but I'm not > going to fuss now. $45 seems to be the norm for LTO-2 tapes too, > several of the big name stores have them at that price. My last major install of LTO was mid-2005 (at Boeing). Since then most of my clients have either had their own facilities (often outsourced to CSC, IBM or similar), or were just ... well ... "not of keen foresight." ;-> > We back up about 70gb off the server that the LTO-2 drive is on and > have another ~50gb from around the network to backup. Given that the > file server doesn't have enough space for a local backup of > everything (a RAID-5 with only space enough in the server for one > more SCSI drive, and IDE is physically out of the question), what do > you suggest for improving this? Throw in a 3Ware card and a few drives -- or go external U320 SCSI subsystem if you need to. Your tape stream should be sustained to maximum and not bumping up against windows or limited by network throughput. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From b.j.smith at ieee.org Tue Jun 20 17:34:22 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Blackcomb--er, Vienna, proof the death of Cairo--er, Longhorn, is now complete ... Message-ID: <1150839262.2761.609.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> No sir, we're not talking about "Longhorn" anymore. It's now here! We're only talking about Vista. "Longhorn" R&D is not worth talking about anymore, we're delivering you a great OS! It's more secure, boots 5% faster on average and even better! "WinFX technologies"? Oh, yeah, well, don't worry about those, we're adding them later. Oh, you still want WinFX? Vista is great! Isn't Vista great? Yeah, oh ... when were we going to add them? Well, truth is, we've already decided to add them to the next release of Windows. "Vienna" will add WinFX, MONAD and other true .NET security with authentication and certificates and all those wipper-snappier technologies! Vista is great! Isn't Vista great? And if Vista is great, won't "Vienna" be even better?! All those neato WinFX technologies, they're going to be in "Vienna." Yes sir, a true .NET platform, that's "Vienna"! We're going to add them to Vienna. We want to do it right. Isn't Vista great? It's almost here! And if you think Vista is cool, you're going to love "Vienna!" We're making it true .NET, adding a new filesystem, a new execution environment and a total security overall -- all true .NET! Yes sir! "Vienna" is the future! Wouldn't you like a brand new filesystem? How about a UNIX-like security model with a true, protected scripting environment? And what about full certificate-based authentication and encryption, for all services? Yep, that's "Vienna"! We've been working on it for years, and it's coming! Until then, Vista is more secure! It's great! We can't do everything, but it's going to be more secure! We've improved Win32 and improved MS IE! And there's a new version of MS Office! Totally written for and native to only Vista! But we realize not everyone is moving to Vista, so we made it so MS Office can run on Windows 2000SP3 and later too! We give you better security but the ability to run old apps! Isn't Vista great? And if you think Vista, the new Office and IE 7 is cool, you'll love "Vienna." It's going to be .NET, a new security model, a new filesystem with SQL and a new, protected scripting environment far more security than UNIX, and everything will be authenticated, encrypted, signed and viruses and spyware completely eliminated! Yes, "Vienna" is everything! Until then, isn't Vista great?! We spent 5 years working on it after Windows XP and added ... well, lots of stuff! And if you think that new stuff is cool, wait until our next Windows OS, "Vienna." Native .NET, full security model, SQL-based filesystem ... and more! JUST FSCKING CALL IT WHAT IT WAS ... "BLACKCOMB"! YOU KNOW, ALL THOSE PROMISED NT 4.0 CAIRO IMPROVEMENTS THAT *NEVER* WENT INTO NT 4.0, THEN WERE PUSHED BACK AS "CARIO TECHNOLOGIES" TO BE RELEASED AFTER NT 4.0'S RELEASE BUT WERE *NEVER* RELEASED BECAUSE YOU SAID THEY WERE GOING INTO NT "BLACKCOMB" WHICH *SILENTLY*DIED* 10 YEARS AGO! Sorry. Had to get that out. This is the climax people. "LONGHORN" IS OFFICIALLY AND HUGELY *FSCKING*VAPORWARE*! Not only is "WinFX" *DEAD* as far as NT 6.0 "Longhorn" Vista and Vista Server go, Microsoft has basically now said that all those "technologies" are going into "Vienna" the successor to "Longhorn"/Vista. They talking about Vienna in 2006, before NT 6.0 "Longhorn" is released in 2007 with *NOTHING* as promised but a bloated, slow and incomplete GUI that caused most of us to rush out and get new video cards. I heard the name "Blackcomb" in 1996 -- 10 years ago! -- before NT 4.0 "Cario" was released in 1997 with *NOTHING* as promised but a bloated, slow and incomplete GUI that will cause most of us to rush out and get new video cards. Now they are saying "Blackcomb" is "Vienna" -- among other codenames. They are acting like it's "newer" when it was designed supposed to be the "peer" to "Whistler"! "Whistler" was supposed an improved version of "Blackcomb" for consumers -- and the codename re-used Windows XP development with _none_ of the "Cario technologies" now designated for "Blackcomb" as originally promised. And everything AND I MEAN EVERYTHING WAS *LEFT* AND *SILENTLY*DIED* or "oh, well, we got this (major substandard of originally promised solution) working! From "yeah, it'll be in Cario" to "yeah, it'll be added later as 'Cario Technologies'" to "oh, we're not adding them after to Cairo, we're going to put them in the next release 'Blackcomb' and then 'Whistler'." 100%, absolute *REPEAT*OF*HISTORY* 10 YEARS AFTER CARIO! This is the death knell. *NOTHING* will actually be released. WinFX Technologies are *DEAD*! They are already acting like they didn't promise them for Longhorn, and that Vienna is where they planned them all along. GOD I MUST BE TOO STUPID FOR THE IT INDUSTRY! -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From damien at mc-kenna.com Tue Jun 20 17:41:47 2006 From: damien at mc-kenna.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Blackcomb--er, Vienna, proof the death of Cairo--er, Longhorn, is now complete ... In-Reply-To: <1150839262.2761.609.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <1150839262.2761.609.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <053C5CE6-EB9A-4975-8C15-DCF0679BA73D@mc-kenna.com> You're not bitter or anything, are you Bryan? -- Damien McKenna, husband, father, geek. damien@mc-kenna.com - http://www.mc-kenna.com/ From wam at HiWAAY.net Tue Jun 20 18:20:32 2006 From: wam at HiWAAY.net (William A. Mahaffey III) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Blackcomb--er, Vienna, proof the death of Cairo--er, Longhorn, is now complete ... In-Reply-To: <1150839262.2761.609.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <1150839262.2761.609.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <449874B0.8030103@HiWAAY.net> Bryan J. Smith wrote: >No sir, we're not talking about "Longhorn" anymore. It's now here! >We're only talking about Vista. "Longhorn" R&D is not worth talking >about anymore, we're delivering you a great OS! It's more secure, boots >5% faster on average and even better! "WinFX technologies"? Oh, yeah, >well, don't worry about those, we're adding them later. > >Oh, you still want WinFX? Vista is great! Isn't Vista great? Yeah, >oh ... when were we going to add them? Well, truth is, we've already >decided to add them to the next release of Windows. > >"Vienna" will add WinFX, MONAD and other true .NET security with >authentication and certificates and all those wipper-snappier >technologies! Vista is great! Isn't Vista great? And if Vista is >great, won't "Vienna" be even better?! > >All those neato WinFX technologies, they're going to be in "Vienna." >Yes sir, a true .NET platform, that's "Vienna"! We're going to add them >to Vienna. We want to do it right. > >Isn't Vista great? It's almost here! And if you think Vista is cool, >you're going to love "Vienna!" We're making it true .NET, adding a new >filesystem, a new execution environment and a total security overall -- >all true .NET! Yes sir! "Vienna" is the future! > >Wouldn't you like a brand new filesystem? How about a UNIX-like >security model with a true, protected scripting environment? And what >about full certificate-based authentication and encryption, for all >services? Yep, that's "Vienna"! We've been working on it for years, >and it's coming! > >Until then, Vista is more secure! It's great! We can't do everything, >but it's going to be more secure! We've improved Win32 and improved MS >IE! And there's a new version of MS Office! Totally written for and >native to only Vista! But we realize not everyone is moving to Vista, >so we made it so MS Office can run on Windows 2000SP3 and later too! We >give you better security but the ability to run old apps! Isn't Vista >great? > >And if you think Vista, the new Office and IE 7 is cool, you'll love >"Vienna." It's going to be .NET, a new security model, a new filesystem >with SQL and a new, protected scripting environment far more security >than UNIX, and everything will be authenticated, encrypted, signed and >viruses and spyware completely eliminated! Yes, "Vienna" is everything! > >Until then, isn't Vista great?! We spent 5 years working on it after >Windows XP and added ... well, lots of stuff! And if you think that new >stuff is cool, wait until our next Windows OS, "Vienna." Native .NET, >full security model, SQL-based filesystem ... and more! > >JUST FSCKING CALL IT WHAT IT WAS ... "BLACKCOMB"! > >YOU KNOW, ALL THOSE PROMISED NT 4.0 CAIRO IMPROVEMENTS THAT *NEVER* WENT >INTO NT 4.0, THEN WERE PUSHED BACK AS "CARIO TECHNOLOGIES" TO BE >RELEASED AFTER NT 4.0'S RELEASE BUT WERE *NEVER* RELEASED BECAUSE YOU >SAID THEY WERE GOING INTO NT "BLACKCOMB" WHICH *SILENTLY*DIED* 10 YEARS >AGO! > >Sorry. Had to get that out. This is the climax people. > >"LONGHORN" IS OFFICIALLY AND HUGELY *FSCKING*VAPORWARE*! Not only is >"WinFX" *DEAD* as far as NT 6.0 "Longhorn" Vista and Vista Server go, >Microsoft has basically now said that all those "technologies" are going >into "Vienna" the successor to "Longhorn"/Vista. > >They talking about Vienna in 2006, before NT 6.0 "Longhorn" is released >in 2007 with *NOTHING* as promised but a bloated, slow and incomplete >GUI that caused most of us to rush out and get new video cards. > >I heard the name "Blackcomb" in 1996 -- 10 years ago! -- before NT 4.0 >"Cario" was released in 1997 with *NOTHING* as promised but a bloated, >slow and incomplete GUI that will cause most of us to rush out and get >new video cards. > >Now they are saying "Blackcomb" is "Vienna" -- among other codenames. > >They are acting like it's "newer" when it was designed supposed to be >the "peer" to "Whistler"! "Whistler" was supposed an improved version >of "Blackcomb" for consumers -- and the codename re-used Windows XP >development with _none_ of the "Cario technologies" now designated for >"Blackcomb" as originally promised. > >And everything AND I MEAN EVERYTHING WAS *LEFT* AND *SILENTLY*DIED* or >"oh, well, we got this (major substandard of originally promised >solution) working! From "yeah, it'll be in Cario" to "yeah, it'll be >added later as 'Cario Technologies'" to "oh, we're not adding them after >to Cairo, we're going to put them in the next release 'Blackcomb' and >then 'Whistler'." > >100%, absolute *REPEAT*OF*HISTORY* 10 YEARS AFTER CARIO! > >This is the death knell. *NOTHING* will actually be released. WinFX >Technologies are *DEAD*! They are already acting like they didn't >promise them for Longhorn, and that Vienna is where they planned them >all along. > >GOD I MUST BE TOO STUPID FOR THE IT INDUSTRY! > > There, feel better now :-) ? -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton From mflang at bellsouth.net Tue Jun 20 19:34:02 2006 From: mflang at bellsouth.net (Max F Lang) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Blackcomb--er, Vienna, proof the death of Cairo--er, Longhorn, is now complete ... In-Reply-To: <1150839262.2761.609.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <1150839262.2761.609.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <200606201934.02343.mflang@bellsouth.net> On Tuesday 20 June 2006 17:34, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > No sir, we're not talking about "Longhorn" anymore. It's now here! > > GOD I MUST BE TOO STUPID FOR THE IT INDUSTRY! We're laughing cuz we know it's true... From b.j.smith at ieee.org Tue Jun 20 21:36:10 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Blackcomb--er, Vienna, proof the death of Cairo--er, Longhorn, is now complete ... In-Reply-To: <200606201934.02343.mflang@bellsouth.net> References: <1150839262.2761.609.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <200606201934.02343.mflang@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <1150853770.2761.702.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 19:34 -0400, Max F Lang wrote: > We're laughing cuz we know it's true... Now that response had me on the floor laughing! Touche! -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From philb at philb.us Tue Jun 20 21:49:14 2006 From: philb at philb.us (Phil Barnett) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Read about Windoes Genuine Advantage Message-ID: <200606202149.14322.philb@philb.us> It's a genuine something, but I don't think "Advantage" is the correct word. http://windowssecrets.com/comp/060615/ -- "Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics; you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.". RMS From bigjohn at midwest.net Wed Jun 21 00:41:57 2006 From: bigjohn at midwest.net (JohnH) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Blackcomb--er, Vienna, proof the death of Cairo--er, Longhorn, is now complete ... References: <1150839262.2761.609.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <01c601c694ed$0792f7b0$6401a8c0@3a5ah6vqcd> Brian, Stop Holding things in, Just Tell Us What You REALLY Think. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryan J. Smith" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:34 PM Subject: [Pc_Support] Blackcomb--er, Vienna, proof the death of Cairo--er,Longhorn, is now complete ... > No sir, we're not talking about "Longhorn" anymore. It's now here! > We're only talking about Vista. "Longhorn" R&D is not worth talking > about anymore, we're delivering you a great OS! It's more secure, boots > 5% faster on average and even better! "WinFX technologies"? Oh, yeah, > well, don't worry about those, we're adding them later. > > Oh, you still want WinFX? Vista is great! Isn't Vista great? Yeah, > oh ... when were we going to add them? Well, truth is, we've already > decided to add them to the next release of Windows. > > "Vienna" will add WinFX, MONAD and other true .NET security with > authentication and certificates and all those wipper-snappier > technologies! Vista is great! Isn't Vista great? And if Vista is > great, won't "Vienna" be even better?! > > All those neato WinFX technologies, they're going to be in "Vienna." > Yes sir, a true .NET platform, that's "Vienna"! We're going to add them > to Vienna. We want to do it right. > > Isn't Vista great? It's almost here! And if you think Vista is cool, > you're going to love "Vienna!" We're making it true .NET, adding a new > filesystem, a new execution environment and a total security overall -- > all true .NET! Yes sir! "Vienna" is the future! > > Wouldn't you like a brand new filesystem? How about a UNIX-like > security model with a true, protected scripting environment? And what > about full certificate-based authentication and encryption, for all > services? Yep, that's "Vienna"! We've been working on it for years, > and it's coming! > > Until then, Vista is more secure! It's great! We can't do everything, > but it's going to be more secure! We've improved Win32 and improved MS > IE! And there's a new version of MS Office! Totally written for and > native to only Vista! But we realize not everyone is moving to Vista, > so we made it so MS Office can run on Windows 2000SP3 and later too! We > give you better security but the ability to run old apps! Isn't Vista > great? > > And if you think Vista, the new Office and IE 7 is cool, you'll love > "Vienna." It's going to be .NET, a new security model, a new filesystem > with SQL and a new, protected scripting environment far more security > than UNIX, and everything will be authenticated, encrypted, signed and > viruses and spyware completely eliminated! Yes, "Vienna" is everything! > > Until then, isn't Vista great?! We spent 5 years working on it after > Windows XP and added ... well, lots of stuff! And if you think that new > stuff is cool, wait until our next Windows OS, "Vienna." Native .NET, > full security model, SQL-based filesystem ... and more! > > JUST FSCKING CALL IT WHAT IT WAS ... "BLACKCOMB"! > > YOU KNOW, ALL THOSE PROMISED NT 4.0 CAIRO IMPROVEMENTS THAT *NEVER* WENT > INTO NT 4.0, THEN WERE PUSHED BACK AS "CARIO TECHNOLOGIES" TO BE > RELEASED AFTER NT 4.0'S RELEASE BUT WERE *NEVER* RELEASED BECAUSE YOU > SAID THEY WERE GOING INTO NT "BLACKCOMB" WHICH *SILENTLY*DIED* 10 YEARS > AGO! > > Sorry. Had to get that out. This is the climax people. > > "LONGHORN" IS OFFICIALLY AND HUGELY *FSCKING*VAPORWARE*! Not only is > "WinFX" *DEAD* as far as NT 6.0 "Longhorn" Vista and Vista Server go, > Microsoft has basically now said that all those "technologies" are going > into "Vienna" the successor to "Longhorn"/Vista. > > They talking about Vienna in 2006, before NT 6.0 "Longhorn" is released > in 2007 with *NOTHING* as promised but a bloated, slow and incomplete > GUI that caused most of us to rush out and get new video cards. > > I heard the name "Blackcomb" in 1996 -- 10 years ago! -- before NT 4.0 > "Cario" was released in 1997 with *NOTHING* as promised but a bloated, > slow and incomplete GUI that will cause most of us to rush out and get > new video cards. > > Now they are saying "Blackcomb" is "Vienna" -- among other codenames. > > They are acting like it's "newer" when it was designed supposed to be > the "peer" to "Whistler"! "Whistler" was supposed an improved version > of "Blackcomb" for consumers -- and the codename re-used Windows XP > development with _none_ of the "Cario technologies" now designated for > "Blackcomb" as originally promised. > > And everything AND I MEAN EVERYTHING WAS *LEFT* AND *SILENTLY*DIED* or > "oh, well, we got this (major substandard of originally promised > solution) working! From "yeah, it'll be in Cario" to "yeah, it'll be > added later as 'Cario Technologies'" to "oh, we're not adding them after > to Cairo, we're going to put them in the next release 'Blackcomb' and > then 'Whistler'." > > 100%, absolute *REPEAT*OF*HISTORY* 10 YEARS AFTER CARIO! > > This is the death knell. *NOTHING* will actually be released. WinFX > Technologies are *DEAD*! They are already acting like they didn't > promise them for Longhorn, and that Vienna is where they planned them > all along. > > GOD I MUST BE TOO STUPID FOR THE IT INDUSTRY! > > > -- > Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance > mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com > ---------------------------------------------------------- > The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup > of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. > > > _______________________________________________ > Pc_support mailing list > Pc_support@matrixlist.com > http://lists.matrixlist.com/mailman/listinfo/pc_support > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.4/364 - Release Date: 6/14/2006 > > From damien at mc-kenna.com Fri Jun 23 15:50:52 2006 From: damien at mc-kenna.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] 19" widescreen LCDs are awesome Message-ID: <71DE75F6-2CE1-4CD0-86AE-876924551DDC@mc-kenna.com> (from my blog) I'm having a major bout of monitor envy. At work, after my suggestion, they upgraded the office so everyone is on LCDs and as part of the deal the Geek gang got swishy new 19" widescreen Viewsonics. They're awesome. With a native resolution of 1440x900 it has 1.6 times the screen real estate of a 15" 1024x768 screen, has lots of width to place windows side-by-side (useful for code comparisons) and doesn't make you crane your neck to look from top to bottom, unlike some larger screens. One really cool feature is that if you have two computers available, one with a regular 15-pin VGA connector and one with a swishy new DVI connector, you can have both of them connected simultaneously and just press a button on the screen to switch between them, so using this I've got both my Mac and beefy PC ready to go as needed. I will definitely say that the DVI output from the Geforce 6800 in the PC is far superior to the VGA from the Geforce 4 MX on the Mac, the text is much more crisp. To give you even more screen envy we got them for about $216 with free shipping and a $20 rebate brings the price to under $200, a third of what we paid for our 17" LCD a few years back! NewEgg is where we got them and to make life easier for you here's a link to search their site with the various options we went for: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2090190020 +1109917096+1233214217+1233314219&Subcategory=2 -- Damien McKenna, husband, father, geek. damien@mc-kenna.com - http://www.mc-kenna.com/ From b.j.smith at ieee.org Fri Jun 23 16:49:46 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] 19" widescreen LCDs are awesome In-Reply-To: <71DE75F6-2CE1-4CD0-86AE-876924551DDC@mc-kenna.com> References: <71DE75F6-2CE1-4CD0-86AE-876924551DDC@mc-kenna.com> Message-ID: <1151095786.6380.7.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 15:50 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote: > (from my blog) > I'm having a major bout of monitor envy. At work, after my > suggestion, they upgraded the office so everyone is on LCDs and as > part of the deal the Geek gang got swishy new 19" widescreen > Viewsonics. They're awesome. With a native resolution of 1440x900 it > has 1.6 times the screen real estate of a 15" 1024x768 screen, has > lots of width to place windows side-by-side (useful for code > comparisons) and doesn't make you crane your neck to look from top to > bottom, unlike some larger screens. You can get 20.1" widescreen LCDs with 1680x1050 for not much more. That gives you near 1280x1024 for near 4:3 compatibility. > One really cool feature is that > if you have two computers available, one with a regular 15-pin VGA > connector and one with a swishy new DVI connector, you can have both > of them connected simultaneously and just press a button on the > screen to switch between them, so using this I've got both my Mac and > beefy PC ready to go as needed. Don't tell me you haven't been buying LCDs with DVI+VGA? Please don't. > I will definitely say that the DVI > output from the Geforce 6800 in the PC is far superior to the VGA > from the Geforce 4 MX on the Mac, the text is much more crisp. Of course, hence why DVI rules! The new double DVI input connector allows 2500 or so horizontal lines at 60Hz, or 1600x1200@120Hz. > To give you even more screen envy we got them for about $216 with free > shipping and a $20 rebate brings the price to under $200, a third of > what we paid for our 17" LCD a few years back! NewEgg is where we got > them and to make life easier for you here's a link to search their > site with the various options we went for: > http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2090190020 > +1109917096+1233214217+1233314219&Subcategory=2 Yep. You'll find most 20.1" are well under $300 as well, many times below $250. _Never_ buy a LCD without DVI. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From damien at mc-kenna.com Fri Jun 23 17:29:55 2006 From: damien at mc-kenna.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] 19" widescreen LCDs are awesome In-Reply-To: <1151095786.6380.7.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <71DE75F6-2CE1-4CD0-86AE-876924551DDC@mc-kenna.com> <1151095786.6380.7.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <18D009A7-3125-4734-B6EF-B337A0D59F97@mc-kenna.com> On Jun 23, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > You can get 20.1" widescreen LCDs with 1680x1050 for not much more. > That gives you near 1280x1024 for near 4:3 compatibility. That's cool, but they were trying to fit them within a specific budget so stuck to the 19" ones. I'm quite pleased with this one so I'm certainly not going to complain. > Don't tell me you haven't been buying LCDs with DVI+VGA? Please > don't. We haven't bought any for about three years, everything until today has been from "the old company" which was before DVI was affordable. >> I will definitely say that the DVI >> output from the Geforce 6800 in the PC is far superior to the VGA >> from the Geforce 4 MX on the Mac, the text is much more crisp. > > Of course, hence why DVI rules! Indeedy, I just need to get them to buy an ADC-to-DVI cable for the Mac then I'll swap them around. > The new double DVI input connector allows 2500 or so horizontal > lines at > 60Hz, or 1600x1200@120Hz. Nifty. I've seen that the Apple 30" screens need dual output, good thing both of my machines have them ;-) > You'll find most 20.1" are well under $300 as well, many times > below $250. The cheapest 20.1" on NewEgg is a Spectre for $250AR, the others are $300. > _Never_ buy a LCD without DVI. Friends don't let friends buy LCDs without DVI. Unless they're into impulse purchases without doing any research, not that I know anyone like that. -- Damien McKenna, husband, father, geek. damien@mc-kenna.com - http://www.mc-kenna.com/ From ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net Sat Jun 24 19:13:14 2006 From: ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net (Austin Denyer (Ozz)) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Video cards Message-ID: <20060624191314.2e11fa67.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> I'm looking for a new video card, and would appreciate some input from the experts on this list. Requirements: PCI-e 2048x1536 @ 16 bit color Easy to set up in Debian amd64. Reasonably priced. It's not gonna be used for gaming, so I don't need something that does the latest and greatest games at 300fps - the resolution is the important thing. Any recommendations? Regards, Ozz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060624/e48fcb8e/attachment.bin From b.j.smith at ieee.org Sat Jun 24 21:29:48 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Video cards -- nVidia NV44 (GeForce 6100/6200/6500) In-Reply-To: <20060624191314.2e11fa67.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> References: <20060624191314.2e11fa67.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> Message-ID: <1151198989.3070.17.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 19:13 -0400, Austin Denyer wrote: > I'm looking for a new video card, and would appreciate some input from > the experts on this list. > Requirements: > PCI-e > 2048x1536 @ 16 bit color > Easy to set up in Debian amd64. > Reasonably priced. > It's not gonna be used for gaming, so I don't need something that does > the latest and greatest games at 300fps - the resolution is the > important thing. > Any recommendations? Any recent distro with X.org X11R6.8.2 or later supports the nVidia NV44 (GeForce 6100/6200/6500): http://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R6.8.2/doc/nv.4.html So any $50-60 chipset-integrated GeForce 6100 mainboard or a sub-$50 cheap GeForce 6200 card will do "out-of-the-box." -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From damien at mc-kenna.com Sat Jun 24 23:26:31 2006 From: damien at mc-kenna.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] WinFS dead, long live NTFS? Message-ID: <449E0267.8010900@mc-kenna.com> http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/2006/06/23/644706.aspx Bryan called it, he first turn at Pin The Donkey. -- Damien McKenna, husband, father, geek. damien@mc-kenna.com - http://www.mc-kenna.com/ From b.j.smith at ieee.org Sun Jun 25 00:02:21 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] WinFS dead, long live NTFS? In-Reply-To: <449E0267.8010900@mc-kenna.com> References: <449E0267.8010900@mc-kenna.com> Message-ID: <1151208141.3070.34.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 23:26 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote: > http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/2006/06/23/644706.aspx > Bryan called it, he first turn at Pin The Donkey. I just want them to address the root flaws in NTFS' design. They keep going off on these "related" solutions and _nothing_ is addressed. They absolutely do nothing as promised and then "excuse it away" like it's not a real need anyway. Sigh, I'm just getting too old to even read stuff from Microsoft anymore. It's all the same "vaporware and switch" strategy. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From paulf at quillandmouse.com Sun Jun 25 00:52:30 2006 From: paulf at quillandmouse.com (Paul M Foster) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] WinFS dead, long live NTFS? In-Reply-To: <449E0267.8010900@mc-kenna.com> References: <449E0267.8010900@mc-kenna.com> Message-ID: <449E168E.3060209@quillandmouse.com> Damien McKenna wrote: > http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/2006/06/23/644706.aspx > Bryan called it, he first turn at Pin The Donkey. > Good lord, what a bunch of marketroid drivel! Guys like this go on for endless paragraphs, say virtually nothing, and end with what's basically a "Isn't it great!" attitude. Ugh. -- Paul M. Foster From ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net Sun Jun 25 09:37:09 2006 From: ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net (Austin Denyer (Ozz)) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] For those still using Win98 / WinME Message-ID: <20060625093709.e6ade6fe.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> Here's a reminder for those using Windoze releases up to and including WinME: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx End of support for Windows 98 and Windows Me July 11, 2006 will bring a close to Extended Support for Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me as part of the Microsoft Lifecycle Policy. Microsoft will retire public and technical support, including security updates, by this date. Existing support documents and content, however, will continue to be available through the Microsoft Support Product Solution Center Web site. This Web site will continue to host a wealth of previous How-to, Troubleshooting, and Configuration content for anyone who may need self-service. Microsoft is retiring support for these products because they are outdated and can expose customers to security risks. We recommend that customers who are still running Windows 98 or Windows Me upgrade to a newer, more secure Microsoft operating system, such as Windows XP, as soon as possible. Customers who upgrade to Windows XP report improved security, richer functionality, and increased productivity. Looks like a good time to take all those remaining Windoze boxes that are too low-spec to run XP and migrate to Linux. Regards, Ozz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060625/aacfdd52/attachment.bin From b.j.smith at ieee.org Sun Jun 25 10:52:17 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] For those still using Win98 / WinME In-Reply-To: <20060625093709.e6ade6fe.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> References: <20060625093709.e6ade6fe.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> Message-ID: <1151247137.3070.92.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 09:37 -0400, Austin Denyer wrote: > Looks like a good time to take all those remaining Windoze boxes that > are too low-spec to run XP and migrate to Linux. Only one caveat is that with modern Linux, you need to be at least i686 generation ISA, or largely i686 with just a few instructions missing. But that was the norm even back in 1996-1997 (AMD K6, Pentium II, etc...). Otherwise, agreed. And I totally love XFCE for this purpose on systems. It runs on 200+MHz and 64+MB machines quite well. Unlike most other "favorites" outside of GNOME/KDE people like to list, XFCE is a _full_ environment, not just a "window manager" (that's only xfwm in XFCE). At the same time, unlike GNOME/KDE, XFCE _only_ launches what is needed -- e.g., the file manager (xffm) does _not_ launch unless it's being used (whereas Nautilus is constantly used in GNOME, and Konqueror in KDE). And that's includes XFCE's integration with and ability to selectively launch various GNOME support as needed. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From b.j.smith at ieee.org Sun Jun 25 11:21:29 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Wireless Routers on sale at CompUSA ... comments requested ... Message-ID: <1151248890.3070.106.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Just want to buy a Wireless AP. I'm hopeful I can buy one of these wireless routers and use it as a bridge between the 802.11 WLAN and 802.3 Ethernet and _nothing_ else (no WAN port usage). I'm going to use a dedicated IPCop zone (and OpenVPN) for connectivity to the LAN/Internet. I'm _not_ going to tweak or load anything custom on them (especially since I understand most have gone back to VxWorks anyway). I don't mind waiting on a rebate, so does anyone have any exposure to the Netgear or USRobotics models below? The Netgear came highly recommended by PCWorld. Netgear WGR614NA: http://www.compusa.com/adproducts/product_info.asp?product_code=302517 Linksys WRT54GS-CU: http://www.compusa.com/adproducts/product_info.asp?product_code=311221 USRobotics USR5461: http://www.compusa.com/adproducts/product_info.asp?product_code=331849 Again, I could care less about the WAN/Internet features. The USRobotics USB print server option looks cool though, especially since I have standard Postscript Level 2/3 printers with USB connectivity. But I'll probably go with the Netgear -- unless someone has any negative comments on it. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From b.j.smith at ieee.org Sun Jun 25 11:30:56 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Wireless Routers on sale at CompUSA ... comments requested ... In-Reply-To: <1151248890.3070.106.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <1151248890.3070.106.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <1151249456.3070.109.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 11:21 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > I don't mind waiting on a rebate, so does anyone have any exposure to > the Netgear or USRobotics models below? The Netgear came highly > recommended by PCWorld. > Netgear WGR614NA: > http://www.compusa.com/adproducts/product_info.asp?product_code=302517 > Linksys WRT54GS-CU: > http://www.compusa.com/adproducts/product_info.asp?product_code=311221 > USRobotics USR5461: > http://www.compusa.com/adproducts/product_info.asp?product_code=331849 Here was that review from 2003 November: http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,112866,00.asp It's an aged (but proven?) solution. I just wonder if it bridges without issue between the 802.11 and 802.3 networks -- and doesn't use the WAN/Internet at all. I assume so, as I've heard others. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From b.j.smith at ieee.org Sun Jun 25 11:41:04 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Wireless Routers on sale at CompUSA ... real APs ... In-Reply-To: <1151249456.3070.109.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <1151248890.3070.106.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151249456.3070.109.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <1151250064.3070.112.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 11:30 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > It's an aged (but proven?) solution. I just wonder if it bridges > without issue between the 802.11 and 802.3 networks -- and doesn't use > the WAN/Internet at all. I assume so, as I've heard others. Of course, there are always $50 _real_ access points like this: http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=51662339 Not available in the stores, and I can probably find it on Froogle for cheaper -- if the rebate applies. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From jasonb at edseek.com Sun Jun 25 11:55:57 2006 From: jasonb at edseek.com (Jason Boxman) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Wireless Routers on sale at CompUSA ... real APs ... In-Reply-To: <1151250064.3070.112.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <1151248890.3070.106.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151249456.3070.109.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151250064.3070.112.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <200606251155.57854.jasonb@edseek.com> On Sunday 25 June 2006 11:41, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 11:30 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > > It's an aged (but proven?) solution. I just wonder if it bridges > > without issue between the 802.11 and 802.3 networks -- and doesn't use > > the WAN/Internet at all. I assume so, as I've heard others. > > Of course, there are always $50 _real_ access points like this: > http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=51662339 > > Not available in the stores, and I can probably find it on Froogle for > cheaper -- if the rebate applies. Exactly. Given my last experience at CompUSA this year... walk away. http://edseek.com/archives/2006/02/17/now-i-know-why-compusa-is-oft-called-crapusa/ -- Jason Boxman http://edseek.com/ - Linux and FOSS stuff From b.j.smith at ieee.org Sun Jun 25 14:03:14 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:51 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Wireless Routers on sale at CompUSA ... real APs ... In-Reply-To: <1151250064.3070.112.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <1151248890.3070.106.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151249456.3070.109.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151250064.3070.112.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <1151258594.3070.121.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 11:41 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > Of course, there are always $50 _real_ access points like this: > http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=51662339 > Not available in the stores, and I can probably find it on Froogle for > cheaper -- if the rebate applies. Yep, NewEgg.COM has it here for $79.99 (before the $40 MIR): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16833156174 -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net Sun Jun 25 17:10:36 2006 From: ozz at ozz.is-a-geek.net (Austin Denyer (Ozz)) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Video cards -- nVidia NV44 (GeForce 6100/6200/6500) In-Reply-To: <1151198989.3070.17.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <20060624191314.2e11fa67.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> <1151198989.3070.17.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <20060625171036.ab3f51aa.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:29:48 -0400, "Bryan J. Smith" wrote: > On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 19:13 -0400, Austin Denyer wrote: > > I'm looking for a new video card, and would appreciate some input from > > the experts on this list. > > Requirements: > > PCI-e > > 2048x1536 @ 16 bit color > > Easy to set up in Debian amd64. > > Reasonably priced. > > It's not gonna be used for gaming, so I don't need something that does > > the latest and greatest games at 300fps - the resolution is the > > important thing. > > Any recommendations? > > Any recent distro with X.org X11R6.8.2 or later supports the nVidia NV44 > (GeForce 6100/6200/6500): > http://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R6.8.2/doc/nv.4.html > > So any $50-60 chipset-integrated GeForce 6100 mainboard or a sub-$50 > cheap GeForce 6200 card will do "out-of-the-box." Thanks. So what should I look for in terms of on-board RAM? Finally, do you have any recommendations of brands to pick from or avoid? Regards, Ozz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060625/d5aac6ee/attachment.bin From b.j.smith at ieee.org Sun Jun 25 18:34:32 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Video cards -- nVidia NV44 (GeForce 6100/6200/6500) In-Reply-To: <20060625171036.ab3f51aa.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> References: <20060624191314.2e11fa67.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> <1151198989.3070.17.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <20060625171036.ab3f51aa.ozz@ozz.is-a-geek.net> Message-ID: <1151274872.3070.126.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 17:10 -0400, Austin Denyer wrote: > So what should I look for in terms of on-board RAM? You don't need much to just drive 2D framebuffer. It takes less than 10MB to drive 1600x1200 at 24-bit. The GeForce 6200TC PCIe (NV44) comes in 16, 32 and 64MB flavors (64, 128 and 256MB, respectively). They start at under $40 these days with both DVI and RGB outputs. If you really, really want cheap, the GeForce MX4000 (NV19) can be had for just over $20. > Finally, do you have any recommendations of brands to pick from or > avoid? Brand name means squat. Just try to find a review of a specific model before you buy. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From justinkz at gmail.com Sun Jun 25 20:10:46 2006 From: justinkz at gmail.com (Justin M. Keyes) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] WinFS dead, long live NTFS? In-Reply-To: <449E0267.8010900@mc-kenna.com> References: <449E0267.8010900@mc-kenna.com> Message-ID: <53b562310606251710t5258cc06rf665346a901157a5@mail.gmail.com> On 6/24/06, Damien McKenna wrote: > http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/2006/06/23/644706.aspx > Bryan called it, he first turn at Pin The Donkey. Read half way through the comments, then stumbled upon Bryan's own comment... man, maybe 1% of the commenters are forgiving--VERY unusual on an msdn blog post. this really looks bad for MS, at least initially. saw Longhorn on a box at work, it's pretty, but, seems too little too late. and after using Mac OS X on my new macbook for the last 7 days, and gnome on my PC boxes, I don't see how Windows can keep up with the pace, if it took them 6 years to get something as mediocre as Vista. -- Justin M. Keyes From pberry2 at cfl.rr.com Sun Jun 25 20:41:07 2006 From: pberry2 at cfl.rr.com (patrick) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] WinFS dead, long live NTFS? In-Reply-To: <53b562310606251710t5258cc06rf665346a901157a5@mail.gmail.com> References: <449E0267.8010900@mc-kenna.com> <53b562310606251710t5258cc06rf665346a901157a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <449F2D23.7040201@cfl.rr.com> Justin M. Keyes wrote: > On 6/24/06, Damien McKenna wrote: > >> http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/2006/06/23/644706.aspx >> Bryan called it, he first turn at Pin The Donkey. > > > Read half way through the comments, then stumbled upon Bryan's own > comment... > > man, maybe 1% of the commenters are forgiving--VERY unusual on an msdn > blog post. this really looks bad for MS, at least initially. > > saw Longhorn on a box at work, it's pretty, but, seems too little too > late. and after using Mac OS X on my new macbook for the last 7 days, > and gnome on my PC boxes, I don't see how Windows can keep up with the > pace, if it took them 6 years to get something as mediocre as Vista. > Vista prequel is on a computer at the PC shop, next door to the Mac shop where I work. What a piece of ancient crap! When I think about 64 bit computing, and the heavy 64 bit apps. already proven in Linux and BSD, I have to agree that Microcrap will NEVER catch up! The 12 year lead Linux and BSD have over Microcrap is insurmountable! Just installed Suse 10.1, with upgrades on broadband, to a donated PIII-800 with 192Mb SDRAM, ASUS P3W-E board, and a 40Gb drive. Whooee!!! Very nice OS! From dmckenna at thelimucompany.com Mon Jun 26 16:39:33 2006 From: dmckenna at thelimucompany.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: Backup methodology (was "Re: [Pc_Support] Re: Tape drive for small file server .... -- LTO-2 has come down from 2005") In-Reply-To: <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: On Jun 19, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Bryan J. Smith wrote: >> We back up about 70gb off the server that the LTO-2 drive is on and >> have another ~50gb from around the network to backup. Given that the >> file server doesn't have enough space for a local backup of >> everything (a RAID-5 with only space enough in the server for one >> more SCSI drive, and IDE is physically out of the question), what do >> you suggest for improving this? > > Throw in a 3Ware card and a few drives -- or go external U320 SCSI > subsystem if you need to. Your tape stream should be sustained to > maximum and not bumping up against windows or limited by network > throughput. So should I do a daily backup to the local drive and then backup up *that* data file to the tape? Or how would it work? We use BackupExec 10 right now but aren't completely adversed to changing to something else, especially as our licenses are up for renewal anyway. Right now I'm thinking of an NLE drive in a Firewire enclosure - do you think a Serial-ATA or e-SATA setup would be more reliable? We're not looking to spend too much on this so SCSI and SAS are out of the question. What I'm aiming for is a weekly backup and then daily incremental backups. I'd like the tape backup to basically be a mirror of the on- disc backup if possible (if it happens at the weekend its pretty much guaranteed to be). Thanks. -- Damien McKenna - Web Developer - dmckenna@thelimucompany.com The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014 #include From b.j.smith at ieee.org Mon Jun 26 19:16:54 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- centralize for lower TCO In-Reply-To: References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 16:39 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote: > So should I do a daily backup to the local drive and then backup up > *that* data file to the tape? You should always _avoid_ streaming over the network directly to tape. http://www.samag.com/documents/sam0509a/0509a_f1.htm At a minimum, you should only send _deltas_ to a near-line store, and then back that up to tape: http://www.samag.com/documents/sam0509a/0509a_f2.htm But in reality today, most people only need off-line backups (e.g., tape/off-site) every week or so. At the same time, they still want nightly near-line backups they can restore from quickly (e.g., disk). Ironically the storage required for "near-line" is not much more than "delta/buffer-only", because you're just adding a few more deltas. http://www.samag.com/documents/sam0509a/0509a_f3.htm You _never_ want the limitations of tape to "hold up" your backups or prevent them from completing during the window. At the same time you recognize that near-line/on-site is not complete without off-line/off-site. And you really want to _avoid_ "manual overhead" that just complicates and costs more -- especially when you can't find something or things don't happen automatically. > Or how would it work? We use BackupExec 10 right now but aren't > completely adversed to changing to something else, especially as > our licenses are up for renewal anyway. Veritas (now Symantec) NetBackup is the "enterprise" complement to their BackupExec. You only need 1 server license and then agents as needed _if_ you use a _centralized_ backup server. > Right now I'm thinking of an NLE drive in a Firewire enclosure - do > you think a Serial-ATA or e-SATA setup would be more reliable? Er, um, er -- if you don't want to go tape, then at least go with 2.5" drives. They can take 10x as much shock as 3.5" drives. Of course, they'll cost you $100 for 60GB. As far as FireWire v. SATA, it really depends. FireWire is slower and can have various issues, SATA is solid (and eSATA brackets/cables only cost $10). But the opposite is that you can't "plug'n play" eSATA (at least not without a $100 3Ware 8006-2LP SATA card), so that becomes an issue. > We're not looking to spend too much on this so SCSI and SAS are out > of the question. First off, SAS is just SATA with SCSI-2. You can still use SATA drives on SAS cards. In fact, many SAS drives fix the "plug'n play" issue of SATA like 3Ware cards. Secondly, I'm scratching my head on what you want. You're already looking to spend money on various disks, cards, etc... as well as software licenses. By the time you keep throwing superstore solutions at the problem, you'll probably find that you're already spending $1-2K on a half-baked, unmaintainable or unreliable system of disks, manual tasks, etc... -- not including the manual overhead to implement it. Which is why ... > What I'm aiming for is a weekly backup and then daily incremental > backups. I'd like the tape backup to basically be a mirror of the on- > disc backup if possible (if it happens at the weekend its pretty much > guaranteed to be). For how many systems are you backing up? Remember, the more "portable disks" you have flying around the "more systems to backup," the more manual overhead you have, various procedures, etc... and lots and lots of room for error. Plus it's not really cheap to maintain several disks, let alone deal with their failure, added vibration and other things flying around. At some point, _centralizing_ your backup on your network is what you want. And if you're not doing that with a combination of disk and tape, you're leaving holes in your backup strategy. It doesn't cost much to implement at all -- and backup should be the one place where you _want_ to spend a few thousand to ensure it is _manageable_! Build a _dedicated_ backup server: - Put lots of disk on it - Put a single tape drive on it You can build a quality PCI-X/PCIe single or dual-core Opteron/Xeon with 2GB of RAM for $750 ... $200 mainboard $150 CPU (single-core, double for dual-core) $150 memory (non-ECC, double for ECC) $100 Ultra 160 SCSI card $150 quality case, PS, DVD-RAM/RW/R drive, various other items Add $750 for 960GB of usable RAID-5 on a 3Ware Escalade 9550SX-4LP (RAID-5 is fine, performance-wise, because you're reading from disk for the tape stream) ... $300 3Ware Escalade 9550SX-4LP (PCI-X**) $450 (4) WD3200SD Caviar RE 24x7 rated Enterprise 320GB Finally, add another $750 for a 100/200GB LTO-1 tape drive. [**NOTE: 3Ware has added a new 9590SX series that is PCIe. It seems to be the 9550SX with a PCI-X to PCIe bridge, so it might work just fine. But I haven't tried it personally. BTW, the 9550SX products seem to be the best for 4+ channels now -- the firmware issues all shaken out. ] Then you basically: - Do a full backup of every system you want backed up - Then delta all systems every night After that you have full copies of everything. If your backup software is "smart," it can maintain those multiple "deltas" (like snapshots) and let you restore from select points in time -- right from disk, over the network. At the same time, you can put whatever you want to tape, directly from that centralized backup server. You don't have to slam you network with traffic. The _only_ traffic on your network are those _small_, _incremental_ deltas that occur at night from the servers/workstations to the backup server. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From wam at HiWAAY.net Mon Jun 26 22:35:39 2006 From: wam at HiWAAY.net (William A. Mahaffey III) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- centralize for lower TCO In-Reply-To: <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <44A0997B.5080906@HiWAAY.net> Bryan J. Smith wrote: >[**NOTE: 3Ware has added a new 9590SX series that is PCIe. It seems to >be the 9550SX with a PCI-X to PCIe bridge, so it might work just fine. >But I haven't tried it personally. BTW, the 9550SX products seem to be >the best for 4+ channels now -- the firmware issues all shaken out. ] > >Then you basically: >- Do a full backup of every system you want backed up >- Then delta all systems every night > >After that you have full copies of everything. If your backup software >is "smart," it can maintain those multiple "deltas" (like snapshots) and >let you restore from select points in time -- right from disk, over the >network. > >At the same time, you can put whatever you want to tape, directly from >that centralized backup server. You don't have to slam you network with >traffic. The _only_ traffic on your network are those _small_, >_incremental_ deltas that occur at night from the servers/workstations >to the backup server. > > Is there any *free* way to do that delta/incremental near-line backup ? I am doing full near-lines, every night, A/B-style (so I have 2 full copies, the older of which is overwritten with each new copy). How much time penalty is there in doing deltas vs. full ? -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton From b.j.smith at ieee.org Mon Jun 26 22:42:09 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- centralize for lower TCO In-Reply-To: <44A0997B.5080906@HiWAAY.net> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <44A0997B.5080906@HiWAAY.net> Message-ID: <1151376130.3070.301.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 21:35 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > Is there any *free* way to do that delta/incremental near-line backup ? > I am doing full near-lines, every night, A/B-style (so I have 2 full > copies, the older of which is overwritten with each new copy). Huh? First off, you're not using rsync? Secondly, there are various "snapshot" options -- not only at the volume manager level, but also using hard links. And there are many other options too. > How much time penalty is there in doing deltas vs. full ? A hell of a lot! If you're only changing 5% of your files/capacity, then you're copying 20x more than you need to! -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From b.j.smith at ieee.org Mon Jun 26 22:50:54 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- centralize for lower TCO In-Reply-To: <1151376130.3070.301.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <44A0997B.5080906@HiWAAY.net> <1151376130.3070.301.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <1151376654.3070.309.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 22:42 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > Huh? > First off, you're not using rsync? > Secondly, there are various "snapshot" options -- not only at the volume > manager level, but also using hard links. > And there are many other options too. A real simple "near-line backup server" approach is to (during the backup window): 1. Do a "LVM snapshot" on the backup server 2. Then have all clients rsync on the backup server Now snapshots for LVM currently only work kernel 2.4 (LVM2/DM2 snapshot support is not "production quality" yet on kernel 2.6), so I still advocate using RHEL/CentOS 3 (and not moving to kernel RHEL/CentOS 4 yet). I keep 5 snapshots for every day of the past week (not including Friday) and then another 3 snapshots for the last 3 Fridays -- 8 total. If data retention is really big, I'll add 2 more snapshots for the last 4th Fridays (2 months) -- 10 total. In addition to being able to put any "snapshot" to tape, I read-only share out LVM snapshots (they are read-only on LVM anyway) via NFS/Samba so users can restore their own files without bothering me. [ I really need to document this in my ELResource pages -- just haven't had time as of late. ] -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From wam at HiWAAY.net Mon Jun 26 23:45:11 2006 From: wam at HiWAAY.net (William A. Mahaffey III) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- centralize for lower TCO In-Reply-To: <1151376130.3070.301.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <44A0997B.5080906@HiWAAY.net> <1151376130.3070.301.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <44A0A9C7.8060908@HiWAAY.net> Bryan J. Smith wrote: >On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 21:35 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > > >>Is there any *free* way to do that delta/incremental near-line backup ? >>I am doing full near-lines, every night, A/B-style (so I have 2 full >>copies, the older of which is overwritten with each new copy). >> >> > >Huh? > >First off, you're not using rsync? > > correct, not installed under SuSE 9.2 by default (not for me anyway). What package is it in ? >Secondly, there are various "snapshot" options -- not only at the volume >manager level, but also using hard links. > >And there are many other options too. > > > >>How much time penalty is there in doing deltas vs. full ? >> >> > >A hell of a lot! If you're only changing 5% of your files/capacity, >then you're copying 20x more than you need to! > > yeah, but you are doing diffs/whatever across the network, that has gotta eat up some time .... -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060626/170035b7/attachment.html From b.j.smith at ieee.org Tue Jun 27 00:32:39 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- rsync (Tridgell sort/sync algorithm) In-Reply-To: <44A0A9C7.8060908@HiWAAY.net> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <44A0997B.5080906@HiWAAY.net> <1151376130.3070.301.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <44A0A9C7.8060908@HiWAAY.net> Message-ID: <1151382759.3070.318.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 22:45 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > correct, not installed under SuSE 9.2 by default (not for me anyway). > What package is it in ? It should be included in all distros in the last 5 or so years. > yeah, but you are doing diffs/whatever across the network, that has > gotta eat up some time .... Quite the opposite! You should read up Tridgell's PhD thesis "Efficient Algorithms for Sorting and Synchronization," the algorithm behind rsync: http://samba.org/~tridge/phd_thesis.pdf Or the "Cliff-Notes" c/o Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rsync The algorithm is not merely used by rsync, but many other programs have adopted it because it's just that damn good. ;-> I sync GBs of data between my portables and my server's home directory in under a minute, instead of several hours, over broadband links. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From wam at HiWAAY.net Tue Jun 27 08:17:10 2006 From: wam at HiWAAY.net (William A. Mahaffey III) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- rsync (Tridgell sort/sync algorithm) In-Reply-To: <1151382759.3070.318.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <44A0997B.5080906@HiWAAY.net> <1151376130.3070.301.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <44A0A9C7.8060908@HiWAAY.net> <1151382759.3070.318.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <44A121C6.9000001@HiWAAY.net> Bryan J. Smith wrote: >On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 22:45 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > > >>correct, not installed under SuSE 9.2 by default (not for me anyway). >>What package is it in ? >> >> > >It should be included in all distros in the last 5 or so years. > > I assure you it isn't installed on my SuSE 9.2 box :-). Which & apropos both say nothing there by that name. > > >>yeah, but you are doing diffs/whatever across the network, that has >>gotta eat up some time .... >> >> > >Quite the opposite! You should read up Tridgell's PhD thesis "Efficient >Algorithms for Sorting and Synchronization," the algorithm behind >rsync: > http://samba.org/~tridge/phd_thesis.pdf > >Or the "Cliff-Notes" c/o Wikipedia: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rsync > >The algorithm is not merely used by rsync, but many other programs have >adopted it because it's just that damn good. ;-> > >I sync GBs of data between my portables and my server's home directory >in under a minute, instead of several hours, over broadband links. > > > Hmmmm, I guess I need to look into that. Where is rsync, again ? -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060627/9abdf3ac/attachment.html From wam at HiWAAY.net Tue Jun 27 08:34:48 2006 From: wam at HiWAAY.net (William A. Mahaffey III) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] 68-pin SCSI card for Linux box .... Message-ID: <44A125E8.7060603@HiWAAY.net> .... I am adding an internal HH LTO-1 (IBM 24P2401) tape drive to my P4 Linux box, SuSE 9.2, box-stock. I need to add a SCSI card to connect to the tape drive. I see an Acard PCI 68-pin SCSI card on NewEgg, about $70.00, w/ cable, but it only explicitly mentions Mac boxen for compatibility. I thought *all* SCSI cards were pretty much supported/would-work under Linux. Does anyone have any reasons to rule out use of this card ? If so, what would you use instead (I'm shopping compatibility & price) ? Thanks in advance. -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton From thomas at tecsplace.com Tue Jun 27 09:22:23 2006 From: thomas at tecsplace.com (Thomas Carlson) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Wireless Routers on sale at CompUSA ... comments requested ... In-Reply-To: <1151248890.3070.106.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <1151248890.3070.106.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <1151414543.2567.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Digg.com had a story yesterday on a recent hack to get linux on the inexpensive wrtg54 linksys offering. It might be worth the extra 10 bucks for the next level up of wrtg54s... more detailed info here... http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS6352077661.html On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 11:21 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > Just want to buy a Wireless AP. I'm hopeful I can buy one of these > wireless routers and use it as a bridge between the 802.11 WLAN and > 802.3 Ethernet and _nothing_ else (no WAN port usage). I'm going to use > a dedicated IPCop zone (and OpenVPN) for connectivity to the > LAN/Internet. I'm _not_ going to tweak or load anything custom on them > (especially since I understand most have gone back to VxWorks anyway). > > I don't mind waiting on a rebate, so does anyone have any exposure to > the Netgear or USRobotics models below? The Netgear came highly > recommended by PCWorld. > > Netgear WGR614NA: > http://www.compusa.com/adproducts/product_info.asp?product_code=302517 > > Linksys WRT54GS-CU: > http://www.compusa.com/adproducts/product_info.asp?product_code=311221 > > USRobotics USR5461: > http://www.compusa.com/adproducts/product_info.asp?product_code=331849 > > Again, I could care less about the WAN/Internet features. The > USRobotics USB print server option looks cool though, especially since I > have standard Postscript Level 2/3 printers with USB connectivity. But > I'll probably go with the Netgear -- unless someone has any negative > comments on it. > > From b.j.smith at ieee.org Tue Jun 27 11:04:36 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: 68-pin SCSI card for Linux box .... -- Ultra80 (Ultra2) SCSI In-Reply-To: <44A125E8.7060603@HiWAAY.net> References: <44A125E8.7060603@HiWAAY.net> Message-ID: <1151420676.3070.368.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 07:34 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > .... I am adding an internal HH LTO-1 (IBM 24P2401) tape drive to my P4 > Linux box, SuSE 9.2, box-stock. I need to add a SCSI card to connect to > the tape drive. I see an Acard PCI 68-pin SCSI card on NewEgg, about > $70.00, w/ cable, but it only explicitly mentions Mac boxen for > compatibility. I thought *all* SCSI cards were pretty much > supported/would-work under Linux. Work, maybe. Boot, no. It all depends. The firmware will _not_ work on a PC -- which means it might not setup devices correctly at POST. > Does anyone have any reasons to rule out use of this card ? If so, > what would you use instead (I'm shopping compatibility & price) ? > Thanks in advance. I can't pull it up from NewEgg.COM (NewEgg.COM has been very slow for me the last week). - LTO drive and SCSI signaling/speed requirements LTO-1 requires an Ultra80 (Ultra2) SCSI card, which can be standard 32-bit PCI. LTO-2 requires an Ultra160 (Ultra3) SCSI card, which is typically PCI-X or 64-bit PCI, maybe 66MHz/32-bit PCI. LTO-3 recommends an Ultra320 (Ultra4) SCSI card, which is almost always PCI-X (or 66MHz/64-bit PCI), although newer PCIe x4 cards (_not_ x1) might be an option now. Now I've seen some LTO-3 drives that just spec Ultra160, so you might not need Ultra320. Do _not_ buy anything less or you'll kill your performance. - LVD (Ultra80/160/320) cabling and termination Also remember that you need to use Low Voltage Differential (LVD) cabling and terminators. LVD cables are _twisted_pair_, and the LVD terminators terminate 2x as many lines as standard Single Ended (SE) terminators. And do _not_ confuse LVD with High Voltage Differentiate (HVD)! The symbols for each can be seen at the bottom of page: http://scsifaq.paralan.com/scsifaqanswers4.html The "outer" less than bracket (<) is HVD. Remember it's on the "outside" of the normal SE SCSI. The "inner" less than bracket (<) is LVD. Remember that it's on the "inside" of the normal SE SCSI (and SE SCSI voltage compatible). BTW, you virtually _never_ see "pure" LVD SCSI. You _always_ have the "dash" because LVD is almost _always_ implemented as SE SCSI compatible. Ironically enough, HVD SCSI is _never_ SE compatible, so it shouldn't have that "dash" -- but it does. HVD pre-dates LVD, so they didn't think of this fact. - Chipsets: Stick with LSI Logic (fka Symbios Logic) As far as chipsets, you can't go wrong with LSI Logic (fka Symbios Logic). A lot of different OEM/vendors use those chips. _Avoid_ Adaptec (don't get me started). Also note that Advansys (the first SCSI vendor to support Linux back in 1994) drivers haven't been updated for awhile, and last time I checked, they were marked "legacy" in kernel 2.6. The 53c895 (as well as dual-channel 53c896) is Ultra80. I bought some Symbios Logic 53c895 32-bit PCI cards for $10 a couple months back -- and they work well! Let me see here ... yep, they still got them too - brand new, _not_ pulls, although OEM/non-boxed: http://www.etech4sale.com/products/partinfo-id-143694.html They are 5V-only 32-bit PCI cards. If you need 3.3V, they actually have these "pulls" (not new) that are 3.3V with 5V tolerance for $33: http://www.etech4sale.com/products/partinfo-id-1137.html The Symbios Logic 53c1010 is a dual-channel Ultra160 and are typically a bit more, plus you do _not_ want to put them in a standard 32-bit PCI slot (bottleneck). It was renamed by LSI Logic as the 21040. There are also newer LSI Logic models as well, like the 20160, 22160, etc... Froogle has some outstanding deals listed for $50+ on Ultra160 and Ultra320 cards: http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=LSI+Ultra160&scoring=p http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=LSI+Ultra320&scoring=p Note they'll almost _always_ be 64-bit PCI or PCI-X for Ultra160/320. Some maybe pulls, some may be new OEM, etc... Also note that some have _Sun_ OpenFirmware, and _not_ PC firmware. But they typically charge and arm'n a leg for those anyway -- so most low-cost cards are PC. - Final note on performance *DO*NOT* put a LTO-1 card on a system in a 32-bit slot when your storage is _also_ on the same 32-bit bus. You're going to _saturate_ your 32-bit PCI -- 133MBps _theoretical_ maximum -- bus. Because you're first going to send 40+MBps from the disk to memory, and then another 40 +MBps from memory to tape. Not good to be "butting up" against that limitation. Try to put storage and tape on _separate_ PCI-X busses. Alternatively, this could be newer PCIe channels or chipsets with SATA on dedicated PCIe x1/x4 channels or HyperTransport bridges (in the chipset itself). -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From b.j.smith at ieee.org Tue Jun 27 11:22:14 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: 68-pin SCSI card for Linux box .... -- Ultra160 card, voltage note ... In-Reply-To: <1151420676.3070.368.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <44A125E8.7060603@HiWAAY.net> <1151420676.3070.368.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <1151421735.3070.375.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 11:04 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > ... > The 53c895 (as well as dual-channel 53c896) is Ultra80. I bought some > Symbios Logic 53c895 32-bit PCI cards for $10 a couple months back -- > and they work well! Let me see here ... yep, they still got them too - > brand new, _not_ pulls, although OEM/non-boxed: > http://www.etech4sale.com/products/partinfo-id-143694.html Again, that will do fine for LTO-1. But I still recommend you do _not_ put your storage on the same PCI bus as it will saturate it. > ... > The Symbios Logic 53c1010 is a dual-channel Ultra160 and are typically a > bit more, plus you do _not_ want to put them in a standard 32-bit PCI > slot (bottleneck). It was renamed by LSI Logic as the 21040. There are > also newer LSI Logic models as well, like the 20160, 22160, etc... > Froogle has some outstanding deals listed for $50+ on Ultra160 and > Ultra320 cards: > http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=LSI+Ultra160&scoring=p > http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=LSI+Ultra320&scoring=p These guys had stock on new, OEM LSIU160 (53c1010) for $49.90 (and not an eBay seller): http://hoct12.stores.yahoo.net/1048.html It's a nice, universal 3.3V/5V 64-bit PCI card which means you can put it in PCI-X slots as well. > Note they'll almost _always_ be 64-bit PCI or PCI-X for Ultra160/320. Remember, PCI-X is only 3.3V. It won't take 5V cards. PCI-X slots are basically the same as a 64-bit PCI, 3.3V-only card: http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2005/11/agp-agp-pro-pci-and-pci-x-voltage.html -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From b.j.smith at ieee.org Tue Jun 27 11:44:53 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] RE: 68-pin SCSI card for Linux box .... In-Reply-To: <9AC3F0E75060224C8BBC5BA2DDC8853A046B42C6@EXV1.corp.adtran.com> References: <9AC3F0E75060224C8BBC5BA2DDC8853A046B42C6@EXV1.corp.adtran.com> Message-ID: <1151423093.3070.386.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 08:27 -0500, PHIL BERGSTRESSER wrote: > William, > I use Adaptec SCSI HBA for SCSI for Windows and Linux and they are > fully compatible. Which Adaptec models? Some newer models actually use LSI ASICs. ;-> If you go Adaptec, _always_ buy retail. *NEVER* buy OEM. Adaptec used to bite me in the ass on Linux because their OEM firmware was _never_ stock, and always customized -- especially on AIC-7xxx series (nearly all Ultra80 and earlier). Which is why I typically went with Advansys and Symbios Logic. Their OEM units are stock to their retail products. But some of Adaptec's newer HBAs (non-RAID) use LSI Logic ASICs. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From b.j.smith at ieee.org Tue Jun 27 13:02:44 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: 68-pin SCSI card for Linux box .... In-Reply-To: <9AC3F0E75060224C8BBC5BA2DDC8853A047A79F2@EXV1.corp.adtran.com> References: <9AC3F0E75060224C8BBC5BA2DDC8853A047A79F2@EXV1.corp.adtran.com> Message-ID: <1151427764.3070.418.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 11:41 -0500, PHIL BERGSTRESSER wrote: > I have used quite a few Adaptec models over the years, but have been > using the 29160 retail for 3 years. Which is why you're not having issues. Retail 29160 cards. The entire AIC-78xx was a serious PITA -- especially Ultra (AIC-787x/788x) and Ultra80 (AIC-789x) OEM models. I used to rip them out of Dell, Gateway, Micron and other PC servers and put in Symbios Logic 53c875 (Ultra) and 53c895/896 (Ultra80) cards in the late '90s. Adaptec _never_ officially supported Linux until very late 1999, and then they still have various "hands off" policies on their RAID cards. When it came to mainboards, I always looked for the 53c8xx on-board over the AIC-78xx. If it had a AIC-78xx, I didn't want it. It typically had all sorts of OEM firmware changes. I.e., Adaptec recommended you _never_ use their generic Windows drivers (or those built-in), but the OEM's Windows driver set. Unfortunately for Linux, there was _no_ AIC-7xxx driver set from the OEM (and the AIC-7xxx driver was already bad enough with retail AIC-78xx solutions without throwing OEM firmware changes issues into the mix). I still see some people complaining about the 29xxx/39xxx series cards, but not nearly as much. The 29160 sold very well on the retail shelf, which is why it better supported. But I'll still stick with 53c895/896 and 53c1010 any day, because it was working damn well for me in 1999. Not only on Linux, not only on NT, but also on OpenVMS/Alpha, Solaris/SPARC, etc... in non-PC firmware flavors too. Symbios Logic (now LSI Logic) has always understood the OEM channel better than Adaptec. > It supports 16 devices which I needed, but only the newer drives have > jumpers for more than 8 positions. That's basic narrow (8-bit data, 3-bit ID/8-device) v. wide (16-bit data, 4-bit ID/16-device) SCSI. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From dmckenna at thelimucompany.com Tue Jun 27 13:54:39 2006 From: dmckenna at thelimucompany.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- centralize for lower TCO In-Reply-To: <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <5764F026-90BF-4A63-A096-1C8472000C0C@thelimucompany.com> On Jun 26, 2006, at 7:16 PM, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 16:39 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote: >> So should I do a daily backup to the local drive and then backup up >> *that* data file to the tape? > > You should always _avoid_ streaming over the network directly to tape. That's what I'm trying to avoid, hence my questions on how to do it :- P My question was a specific implementation question, i.e. should I first backup the files to disk and copy that archive file to tape, or should I do a separate backup of the data straight to tape? The problem with the former, as I see it, is that you end up with an archive within an archive, i.e you're not backing up the source files you're backing up a 150gb file and that's what you'd be restoring should the need arise. > But in reality today, most people only need off-line backups (e.g., > tape/off-site) every week or so. At the same time, they still want > nightly near-line backups they can restore from quickly (e.g., disk). Yep, that's the plan. >> Or how would it work? We use BackupExec 10 right now but aren't >> completely adversed to changing to something else, especially as >> our licenses are up for renewal anyway. > > Veritas (now Symantec) NetBackup is the "enterprise" complement to > their > BackupExec. You only need 1 server license and then agents as needed > _if_ you use a _centralized_ backup server. We have one centralized backup server running BackupExec, I don't see the purpose of having NetBackup. Needless to say the Symantec site is pretty useless in explaining in real terms how each one works versus the other, and the rep at CDW said we didn't need NetBackup to do basic stuff that we just need the "Advanced File Backup Option" for BackupExec. It seems to be the usual "enterprisey" BS to me - there are technical issues at hand but its so wrapped up in BS PR terms and marketed to management that the lowly geeks can't get the information they want/need to make the decision. >> Right now I'm thinking of an NLE drive in a Firewire enclosure - do >> you think a Serial-ATA or e-SATA setup would be more reliable? > > Er, um, er -- if you don't want to go tape, then at least go with 2.5" > drives. You misunderstood. We already have the LTO-2 drive I've mentioned before, I don't want to go SCSI for the near-line portion of our backup routine. > As far as FireWire v. SATA, it really depends. FireWire is slower and > can have various issues, SATA is solid (and eSATA brackets/cables only > cost $10). But the opposite is that you can't "plug'n play" eSATA (at > least not without a $100 3Ware 8006-2LP SATA card), so that becomes an > issue. Right now I'm looking at a SCSI enclosure for $55 (http:// www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817145006) and a $20 card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16816132002). > First off, SAS is just SATA with SCSI-2. You can still use SATA > drives > on SAS cards. In fact, many SAS drives fix the "plug'n play" issue of > SATA like 3Ware cards. SAS controller cards cost more than what we're looking to spend on this, never mind the drives. > By the time you keep throwing superstore solutions at the problem, > you'll probably find that you're already spending $1-2K on a half- > baked, > unmaintainable or unreliable system of disks, manual tasks, etc... -- > not including the manual overhead to implement it. Implementation time isn't a concern, its daily maintenance that's the problem. >> What I'm aiming for is a weekly backup and then daily incremental >> backups. I'd like the tape backup to basically be a mirror of the >> on- >> disc backup if possible (if it happens at the weekend its pretty much >> guaranteed to be). > > For how many systems are you backing up? Two main servers (the file server itself and a second server running MS Exchange) plus a negligible quantity of remote files around the network. > Remember, the more "portable disks" you have flying around the "more > systems to backup," the more manual overhead you have, various > procedures, etc... and lots and lots of room for error. I don't see the room for error. > Plus it's not really cheap to maintain several disks, let alone deal > with their failure, added vibration and other things flying around. They won't be flying around?! > At some point, _centralizing_ your backup on your network is what you > want. At what point did I say that we *weren't* doing a centralized backup? > And if you're not doing that with a combination of disk and tape, > you're leaving holes in your backup strategy. Again, at what point did I say we *weren't* doing this? I've repeatedly said this is what we want to do. > Build a _dedicated_ backup server: > - Put lots of disk on it > - Put a single tape drive on it Won't happen. We have a DL380 file server running 140gb of space on a SCSI RAID-5 with an LTO-2 tape drive attached and currently using about 60-70gb of space. We have a second DL380 with <20gb of Exchange 2003 data. > You can build a quality PCI-X/PCIe single or dual-core Opteron/Xeon > with > 2GB of RAM for $750 ... I know and don't care, it is out of scope for this project. > [**NOTE: 3Ware has added a new 9590SX series that is PCIe. It > seems to > be the 9550SX with a PCI-X to PCIe bridge, so it might work just fine. Nice, finally they moved to PCIe. > Then you basically: > - Do a full backup of every system you want backed up > - Then delta all systems every night Yes. I know. More specifically I want: 1. Full backup of the servers in question to a local disk (via external SATA), updated weekly. 2. Full backup of the servers in question to LTO-2 tape, rotated weekly. 3. Daily deltas of the servers in question to the same local disk. In effect I want #1 and #2 to the same. > After that you have full copies of everything. If your backup > software > is "smart," it can maintain those multiple "deltas" (like > snapshots) and > let you restore from select points in time -- right from disk, over > the > network. BackupExec seems a bit dumb, er, crap, in this regard. Yes, you can create delta backups but it doesn't seem to let you out-of-the-box create a rotating group of disk backup files. So, to make sure you're not getting mixed up in the month-long conversation... * We've got about 160gb of data spread over two servers. * Both servers are the same - DL380's with SCSI drives in RAID-5. * Both servers run Windows 2003 (we upgraded recently from '2000). * One server, with the bare files, has an LTO-2 drive connected to the internal SCSI controller. * The other server just has MS Exchange 2003 with some related utilities. * There's a tiny amount of workstation-level data that's being backed up but I can use something on that specific PC if needed, i.e. it isn't really part of the equation. * I want to do a weekly full snapshot of both servers. * I want daily deltas of both servers. * I want to copy the weekly snapshot to tape so I have a 1-to-1 relationship between the on-disk weekly snapshot and the tapes. * The weekly tape backups should be of the original data, i.e. if I do a list of the tape's catalog I want to see the source files and not a 160gb backup file which must be extracted in its entirety before I can then access the source files. This seems to be a problem with many solutions. * At the hardware level we're looking at an external solution due to space limitations. * SCSI is too expensive for us, as is SAS. * External SATA of some sort, be it official e-SATA or just an external SATA connector, seems to be a good route to take in terms of speed vs reliability vs cost. * I'm looking at either a Western Digital RE-series or Seagate NL35 drive for the improved reliability over consumer grade drives. $85 for 250gb is plenty I think, or 320gb for $120. * I'm looking at about $20 for a controller card and $55 for a case, so $160 to $195 total. * BackupExec by default has crappy D2D2T support, it seems a $380 add- on is required to do what I want. * Our licenses for BackupExec are up for renewal so it is worth considering alternative products. -- Damien McKenna - Web Developer - dmckenna@thelimucompany.com The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014 #include From dmckenna at thelimucompany.com Tue Jun 27 14:04:34 2006 From: dmckenna at thelimucompany.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- centralize for lower TCO In-Reply-To: <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <3DD445A9-C88E-43F3-80DC-9FE8A836B17C@thelimucompany.com> As an update I've discovered that BackupExec supports a process called a Duplicate Backup which seems to do exactly what I want after all - it lets you copy all of the data from one backup onto another one, so e.g. a file-based backup could be copied to tape. -- Damien McKenna - Web Developer - dmckenna@thelimucompany.com The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014 #include From b.j.smith at ieee.org Tue Jun 27 15:08:53 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- centralize for lower TCO In-Reply-To: <5764F026-90BF-4A63-A096-1C8472000C0C@thelimucompany.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <5764F026-90BF-4A63-A096-1C8472000C0C@thelimucompany.com> Message-ID: <1151435333.3070.477.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 13:54 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote: > That's what I'm trying to avoid, hence my questions on how to do it :- > P My question was a specific implementation question, i.e. should I > first backup the files to disk and copy that archive file to tape, or > should I do a separate backup of the data straight to tape? But to _what_ disc? > The problem with the former, as I see it, is that you end up with an > archive within an archive, i.e you're not backing up the source files > you're backing up a 150gb file and that's what you'd be restoring > should the need arise. Actually, the software shouldn't do that. It will "unarchive" the source file into a tape stream. No double archive. However, if the software is _not_ intelligent, then you're just putting a full plus separate incrementals to tape. But to _what_ disc? > We have one centralized backup server running BackupExec, I don't see > the purpose of having NetBackup. Far more flexibility. > Needless to say the Symantec site > is pretty useless in explaining in real terms how each one works > versus the other, and the rep at CDW said we didn't need NetBackup to > do basic stuff that we just need the "Advanced File Backup Option" > for BackupExec. It seems to be the usual "enterprisey" BS to me - > there are technical issues at hand but its so wrapped up in BS PR > terms and marketed to management that the lowly geeks can't get the > information they want/need to make the decision. Oh, if you're using "Advanced File Backup Option," then it may do some of what you want. NetBackup has more options, although most people don't take advantage of them. Heck, most people still stream directly to tape today, over the network (yikes!). > You misunderstood. We already have the LTO-2 drive I've mentioned > before, I don't want to go SCSI for the near-line portion of our > backup routine. Then just throw some local 3Ware storage on your server and you're good-to-go. BTW, what is your server? I/O? What is its disk as well SCSI controller for the tape? > Right now I'm looking at a SCSI enclosure for $55 (http:// > www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817145006) and a $20 > card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16816132002). Huh? Why not just get an eSATA cable converter and use the on-board SATA channels? Or is the server that old? If so, maybe that should make you consider spending money on a newer backup server that can handle the stream load? Furthermore, be _careful_ in plugging in 32-bit PCI cards on servers with 64-bit PCI-X slots. You can't use 5V cards and you will often _slow_down_ the PCI-X slots to 33MHz. Just FYI. ;-> > Implementation time isn't a concern, its daily maintenance that's the > problem. And that's where removable drives suck, _hard_. ;-> The only thing you want to make "manual" in your backup strategy is when you take the off-line media (e.g., tape) off-site. 3.5" disc is not like tape cartridge. At a _minimum_, I recommend a 2.5" disc. They take 10x the Gs. There's nothing worse than a server that has an external disc going "hiccup" ... "hiccup" ... "hiccup" and it's _not_ RAID so the _whole_ system starts _crashing_. Think about it. ;-> At Boeing, we had 2 labs with Linux and Windows having constant _crashes_. The problem? External USB 2.0 and FireWire drives. They even tried removable SCSI -- same issues. I put in a $100 3Ware Escalade 8006-2LP card with two 3.5" bays. And in that 3.5" bay, I put 2.5" drives that were rubber-standoff padded. At no time was more than 1 disc removed. That prevented the "downing" of the server, as well as the reliance on the disk not to have issues. But still, there was _manual_overhead_ in removing drives, telling the 3Ware software to rebuild, etc... when drives were removed/added. It _not_ ideal and the _only_ reason I did it that way was because we couldn't centralize the backup for those labs because they were independent (i.e., classified). In your case, your servers are all on the same network. So in your case, you should have 1 backup server with 1 tape drive -- period. > Two main servers (the file server itself and a second server running > MS Exchange) plus a negligible quantity of remote files around the > network. In that case, you're already an ideal candidate for a centralized backup server with local, near-line store. > I don't see the room for error. Sorry, the sarcasm didn't come through. ;-> What I meant was that anytime you're doing "manual" tasks, you've got lots of places were errors can (and will) occur. > They won't be flying around?! Again, you didn't get what I meant at all. If you're pulling drives and moving them around, plan on 50% of 3.5" drives _failing_ per year. > At what point did I say that we *weren't* doing a centralized backup? You were talking about getting removable/portable hard drives. I was advocating _against_ that. > Won't happen. We have a DL380 file server running 140gb of space on > a SCSI RAID-5 with an LTO-2 tape drive attached and currently using > about 60-70gb of space. We have a second DL380 with <20gb of > Exchange 2003 data. I'm missing something here. You have 2 file servers and countless, file backup from individual systems. And why can't you spending $1,000 on a dedicated, 500GB backup server? Specially when they'll spend _more_ on man-hours moving around and manually backing up with removable drives? > I know and don't care, it is out of scope for this project. So _what_ are you going to do? I'm scratching my head on that. You're going to go around with removable/portable drives? And how is _that_ going to save you money? Especially if you have to "down" the server to remove disks? Or spend $100-300 on a 3Ware or SAS card so you can hot-swap SATA? Why not spend a little more money and put in a _real_ backup server for about $1,000 with 500GB of disk? Seriously -- put in a $500 system with a $100 3Ware Escalade 7006/8006-2LP and two $200 500GB ATA/SATA drives. > More specifically I want: > 1. Full backup of the servers in question to a local disk (via > external SATA), updated weekly. And how long do you expect that SATA drive to last, "flying around"? Or how many SATA drives are you going to "buy" to do such? And how often have you budgeted their "replacement"? $1,000 adds up really fast. ;-> > 2. Full backup of the servers in question to LTO-2 tape, rotated weekly. >From one to the other, over the network? Over a dedicated channel? > 3. Daily deltas of the servers in question to the same local disk. So if that server blows up, or its filesystem tanks, you lose as well? > In effect I want #1 and #2 to the same. I'm not getting what you mean. > BackupExec seems a bit dumb, er, crap, in this regard. Yes, you can > create delta backups but it doesn't seem to let you out-of-the-box > create a rotating group of disk backup files. I know. > So, to make sure you're not getting mixed up in the month-long > conversation... > * We've got about 160gb of data spread over two servers. > * Both servers are the same - DL380's with SCSI drives in RAID-5. > * Both servers run Windows 2003 (we upgraded recently from '2000). > * One server, with the bare files, has an LTO-2 drive connected to > the internal SCSI controller. What speed? LTO-2 wants Ultra160. > * The other server just has MS Exchange 2003 with some related > utilities. > * There's a tiny amount of workstation-level data that's being backed > up but I can use something on that specific PC if needed, i.e. it > isn't really part of the equation. But it _does_ take up your time? And that requires effort to address. > * I want to do a weekly full snapshot of both servers. > * I want daily deltas of both servers. > * I want to copy the weekly snapshot to tape so I have a 1-to-1 > relationship between the on-disk weekly snapshot and the tapes. Why not make your local disk a _superset_ of backups to tape? So you can go "back in time" 1, 2, 3 ... 6 days, or even 1, 2, 3 weeks ... maybe even another 2 months? > * The weekly tape backups should be of the original data, i.e. if I > do a list of the tape's catalog I want to see the source files and > not a 160gb backup file which must be extracted in its entirety > before I can then access the source files. This seems to be a > problem with many solutions. Huh? I'm not following you. > * At the hardware level we're looking at an external solution due to > space limitations. But how are you going to "hot-swap" those external solutions? > * SCSI is too expensive for us, as is SAS. I know. That's why I said a 3Ware solution would be _cheaper_, while still giving you "hot-swap." > * External SATA of some sort, be it official e-SATA or just an > external SATA connector, seems to be a good route to take in terms of > speed vs reliability vs cost. But how are you going to "hot-swap" it? > * I'm looking at either a Western Digital RE-series or Seagate NL35 > drive for the improved reliability over consumer grade drives. $85 > for 250gb is plenty I think, or 320gb for $120. > * I'm looking at about $20 for a controller card and $55 for a case, > so $160 to $195 total. > * BackupExec by default has crappy D2D2T support, it seems a $380 add- > on is required to do what I want. > * Our licenses for BackupExec are up for renewal so it is worth > considering alternative products. In the famous words of Vern, "I must be an idiot" because I'm trying to figure out how you're going to spend less than $1,000 and why you keep saying my suggestions are "outside the scope of the project." Especially since my suggestions _completely_eliminate_ the manual processes you talk about -- other than when you write to tape. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From b.j.smith at ieee.org Tue Jun 27 15:42:47 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- Staged migration ... In-Reply-To: <1151435333.3070.477.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <5764F026-90BF-4A63-A096-1C8472000C0C@thelimucompany.com> <1151435333.3070.477.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <1151437368.3070.508.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 15:08 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > So _what_ are you going to do? > I'm scratching my head on that. > You're going to go around with removable/portable drives? > And how is _that_ going to save you money? > Especially if you have to "down" the server to remove disks? > Or spend $100-300 on a 3Ware or SAS card so you can hot-swap SATA? > Why not spend a little more money and put in a _real_ backup server for > about $1,000 with 500GB of disk? Seriously -- put in a $500 system with > a $100 3Ware Escalade 7006/8006-2LP and two $200 500GB ATA/SATA drives. > And how long do you expect that SATA drive to last, "flying around"? > Or how many SATA drives are you going to "buy" to do such? > And how often have you budgeted their "replacement"? > $1,000 adds up really fast. ;-> Hey, I'm not trying to be a "my way dammit," but I'm trying to save you some grief. With your current "plan," understand what you're doing ... 1. You're changing the hardware on _production_ servers 2. You're now putting server reliability at the merge of "consumer" external storage (not good) 3. You're adding/removing external storage on servers (downtime?) That's 3 strikes in my book. I've offered you an option that costs $1,000 (running CentOS 4), maybe $1,500+ if you buy Symantec NetBackup Server for Linux (~$400) + a few Windows/Linux client licenses (~$40/each). It ... A. Gives you 500GB of fixed, but _separate_ storage on your net B. Does _not_ add "new tasks/issues" to your _production_ servers C. Let's you decide when to "move your tape drive" over to it You can keep using your tape drive as you wish on your production server with BackupExec. You can "pilot" the network backups to the new server at your leisure, including moving the tape drive over when you want. You can "test" (using Symantec's free eval) using NetBackup to see how well it will do with your setup, etc... -- the agents running on the Windows servers. And being Linux, you can use it as a Rsync/SSH server for backing up subdirectories, etc... as you see fit with shell and other scripts (even if NetBackup ends up backing up those directories). And if it works well, and you need more storage, you can _always_ throw in a newer 3Ware 9550SX card with more disks later on. You'll ... - _Mitigate_ changes to your _production_ servers - Save time and, probably, downtime as well -- Bryan P.S. And yes, I do this for a living -- point out where companies and their IT departments are spending more time and effort let alone introducing risks to their _production_ servers, when they could save a lot of time and downtime, mitigate (possibly eliminate) changes to their _production_ servers/infrastructure, all for a small amount of money -- and in many cases -- actually no more money than they were going to spend (before even considering man-hours, possible downtime, etc...). -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From dmckenna at thelimucompany.com Tue Jun 27 16:34:56 2006 From: dmckenna at thelimucompany.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- centralize for lower TCO In-Reply-To: <1151435333.3070.477.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <5764F026-90BF-4A63-A096-1C8472000C0C@thelimucompany.com> <1151435333.3070.477.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <55C60399-A757-4A77-83D5-460945FB2BAD@thelimucompany.com> On Jun 27, 2006, at 3:08 PM, Bryan J. Smith wrote: >> The problem with the former, as I see it, is that you end up with an >> archive within an archive, i.e you're not backing up the source files >> you're backing up a 150gb file and that's what you'd be restoring >> should the need arise. > > Actually, the software shouldn't do that. It will "unarchive" the > source file into a tape stream. No double archive. However, if the > software is _not_ intelligent, then you're just putting a full plus > separate incrementals to tape. Problem solved, BackupExec does what I want in this regard. >> We have one centralized backup server running BackupExec, I don't see >> the purpose of having NetBackup. > > Far more flexibility. Examples? > Oh, if you're using "Advanced File Backup Option," then it may do some > of what you want. NetBackup has more options, although most people > don't take advantage of them. We don't need the Advanced File Backup Option as it turns out, the default BackupExec can do what we want. > Heck, most people still stream directly to tape today, over the > network > (yikes!). Yes, right now we're doing that as we don't have the disk space to do a local copy first. > BTW, what is your server? I/O? What is its disk as well SCSI > controller for the tape? We've had this discussion before. >> Right now I'm looking at a SCSI enclosure for $55 (http:// >> www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817145006) and a $20 >> card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp? >> Item=N82E16816132002). > > Huh? Why not just get an eSATA cable converter and use the on-board > SATA channels? Or is the server that old? Slight Freudian slip, I meant a SATA enclosure. > Furthermore, be _careful_ in plugging in 32-bit PCI cards on servers > with 64-bit PCI-X slots. You can't use 5V cards and you will often > _slow_down_ the PCI-X slots to 33MHz. Just FYI. ;-> This server has 1x 64bit/33MHz 5V slot and 2x 64bit/66MHz 3.3V slots. >> Implementation time isn't a concern, its daily maintenance that's the >> problem. > > And that's where removable drives suck, _hard_. ;-> You made an assumption there somewhere, you'll see here in a sec. > The only thing you want to make "manual" in your backup strategy is > when > you take the off-line media (e.g., tape) off-site. Yep. > At Boeing, we had 2 labs with Linux and Windows having constant > _crashes_. The problem? External USB 2.0 and FireWire drives. They > even tried removable SCSI -- same issues. That's not good. > I put in a $100 3Ware Escalade 8006-2LP card with two 3.5" bays. > And in > that 3.5" bay, I put 2.5" drives that were rubber-standoff padded. At > no time was more than 1 disc removed. That prevented the "downing" of > the server, as well as the reliance on the disk not to have issues. Cool. > In your case, your servers are all on the same network. So in your > case, you should have 1 backup server with 1 tape drive -- period. Yep. That's what we're doing. >> Two main servers (the file server itself and a second server running >> MS Exchange) plus a negligible quantity of remote files around the >> network. > > In that case, you're already an ideal candidate for a centralized > backup > server with local, near-line store. Yes, again, that's what we're doing. >> They won't be flying around?! > > Again, you didn't get what I meant at all. > If you're pulling drives and moving them around, plan on 50% of 3.5" > drives _failing_ per year. Here's the assumption :-P I never said we'd be swapping out the external drive. Look at what we'll be doing: * Weekly backup of ~160gb of data. * Daily backup of <5gb of data times five days = <30gb Total: < 200gb. The only reason to look at an external solution is *simply* because there isn't enough space internally for more drives. The *internals* of this server (DL380-G2) do not have any free power cords, everything is hard-wired to its custom SCSI setup, i.e. no SATA, no ATA, not even a 4-pin power cord, nuffink. As a result of this I looked to an external housing of some sort and the most affordable way of doing it will be SATA. >> At what point did I say that we *weren't* doing a centralized backup? > > You were talking about getting removable/portable hard drives. > I was advocating _against_ that. I was talking about _external_ drives, focusing on the "it isn't internal as there isn't the room" aspects rather than the "we can swap them out every day" aspects. > Especially if you have to "down" the server to remove disks? I expect that to happen rarely, i.e. to only happen upon hardware failure. > Or spend $100-300 on a 3Ware or SAS card so you can hot-swap SATA? Because they don't make any good SATA cards that are plain PCI and not PCI-X or PCI-E, unless I'm missing something regarding compatibility between 64bit PCI and PCI-X? >> In effect I want #1 and #2 to the same. > > I'm not getting what you mean. I missed a word in there, "be", i.e. the tape and nearline complete backups should be functionally the same. >> BackupExec seems a bit dumb, er, crap, in this regard. Yes, you can >> create delta backups but it doesn't seem to let you out-of-the-box >> create a rotating group of disk backup files. > > I know. What I'll do instead is just have separate backup jobs for each day of the week. Its a pain but its manageable, given how often we tweak any of them. >> * One server, with the bare files, has an LTO-2 drive connected to >> the internal SCSI controller. > > What speed? LTO-2 wants Ultra160. It is Ultra160 and it shares its bus with the older DLT-1 drive. We only ever have one drive working at any one time, they're just sitting there until needed. Also, the server has two channels, one internal and one external. >> * There's a tiny amount of workstation-level data that's being backed >> up but I can use something on that specific PC if needed, i.e. it >> isn't really part of the equation. > > But it _does_ take up your time? > And that requires effort to address. Cobian Backup, five minutes to set up, forget it afterwards. Next? >> * I want to copy the weekly snapshot to tape so I have a 1-to-1 >> relationship between the on-disk weekly snapshot and the tapes. > > Why not make your local disk a _superset_ of backups to tape? The hassle-vs-cost benefit is a bit too high right now, we can cope just fine with retrieving a tape from someone's house for the rare occasion that we might need to rescue an old file (hasn't happened in 4 years yet). >> * At the hardware level we're looking at an external solution due to >> space limitations. > > But how are you going to "hot-swap" those external solutions? We're not. -- Damien McKenna - Web Developer - dmckenna@thelimucompany.com The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014 #include From b.j.smith at ieee.org Tue Jun 27 16:45:26 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- centralize for lower TCO In-Reply-To: <55C60399-A757-4A77-83D5-460945FB2BAD@thelimucompany.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <5764F026-90BF-4A63-A096-1C8472000C0C@thelimucompany.com> <1151435333.3070.477.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <55C60399-A757-4A77-83D5-460945FB2BAD@thelimucompany.com> Message-ID: <1151441126.3070.537.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 16:34 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote: > Examples? 3-tier backup -- client to backup server to storage. It manages the volumes on the backup server, disk and tape. > Here's the assumption :-P I never said we'd be swapping out the > external drive. > Look at what we'll be doing: > * Weekly backup of ~160gb of data. > * Daily backup of <5gb of data times five days = <30gb > Total: < 200gb. > The only reason to look at an external solution is *simply* because > there isn't enough space internally for more drives. The *internals* > of this server (DL380-G2) do not have any free power cords, > everything is hard-wired to its custom SCSI setup, i.e. no SATA, no > ATA, not even a 4-pin power cord, nuffink. As a result of this I > looked to an external housing of some sort and the most affordable > way of doing it will be SATA. Oh, okay, sorry. > Because they don't make any good SATA cards that are plain PCI and > not PCI-X or PCI-E, unless I'm missing something regarding > compatibility between 64bit PCI and PCI-X? Huh? The $100 3Ware Escalade 8006-2LP is a 64-bit/66MHz PCI card, universal 3.3V with 5V tolerance. It works in 66MHz PCI-X slots too. Then just use a couple of eSATA cables and you're set (although try to keep the length down). Any card that has an "external SATA" port on it is a _gimmick_. A $10 cable converter will do the same. ;-> > It is Ultra160 and it shares its bus with the older DLT-1 drive. Huh, oh. Is that older DLT-1 drive single-ended (SE)? If so, then you're bus is running at 40MBps, _not_ 160MBps. > We only ever have one drive working at any one time, they're just > sitting there until needed. Also, the server has two channels, one > internal and one external. Is the DLT internal? If so, then it's on a different channel (good). > Cobian Backup, five minutes to set up, forget it afterwards. Next? You just lost me there. > The hassle-vs-cost benefit is a bit too high right now, we can cope > just fine with retrieving a tape from someone's house for the rare > occasion that we might need to rescue an old file (hasn't happened in > 4 years yet). Huh? You lost me there too. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From b.j.smith at ieee.org Tue Jun 27 17:00:22 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- centralize for lower TCO In-Reply-To: <1151441126.3070.537.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <5764F026-90BF-4A63-A096-1C8472000C0C@thelimucompany.com> <1151435333.3070.477.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <55C60399-A757-4A77-83D5-460945FB2BAD@thelimucompany.com> <1151441126.3070.537.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <1151442023.3070.543.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 16:45 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > The $100 3Ware Escalade 8006-2LP is a 64-bit/66MHz PCI card, universal > 3.3V with 5V tolerance. It works in 66MHz PCI-X slots too. Then just > use a couple of eSATA cables and you're set (although try to keep the > length down). Here's a 2-port eSATA bracket with 5" cables for $5.98: http://www.cooldrives.com/duesiipcipob.html The 3Ware Escalade 8006-2LP is actually 7.5" long, with the ports at the opposite end of the bracket, so you'll need 10" for $2.00 more (see the pull-down). Remember that SATA shouldn't go longer than 1m (39"), so you don't want the rest of the cabling (including the cables internal to any external closure) to total more than that. I know they talk about "shielded" eSATA going 2m, but don't count on more than 40" total. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From wam at HiWAAY.net Tue Jun 27 18:29:36 2006 From: wam at HiWAAY.net (William A. Mahaffey III) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:52 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: 68-pin SCSI card for Linux box .... -- Ultra160 card, voltage note ... In-Reply-To: <1151421735.3070.375.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <44A125E8.7060603@HiWAAY.net> <1151420676.3070.368.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151421735.3070.375.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <44A1B150.1000904@HiWAAY.net> Bryan J. Smith wrote: >On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 11:04 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > > >> ... >>The 53c895 (as well as dual-channel 53c896) is Ultra80. I bought some >>Symbios Logic 53c895 32-bit PCI cards for $10 a couple months back -- >>and they work well! Let me see here ... yep, they still got them too - >>brand new, _not_ pulls, although OEM/non-boxed: >> http://www.etech4sale.com/products/partinfo-id-143694.html >> >> > >Again, that will do fine for LTO-1. But I still recommend you do _not_ >put your storage on the same PCI bus as it will saturate it. > > I understand this point quite well, how do I check that ? I have 3 HDD's hooked up to the onboard (Foxconn 865A-01 i865 mbd) IDE controller, I didn't think that they went through the PCI bus, just other peripherials (NIC's, for example). I am backing stuff up from the HDD's on *this* box to the new tape drive, *after* this box gathers its near-line backup over the network from the other 4 boxen. I just ordered the above card, BTW, thanx :-). .... -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060627/06f8c6df/attachment.html From b.j.smith at ieee.org Tue Jun 27 22:42:13 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:53 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: 68-pin SCSI card for Linux box .... -- i865/875 = desktop (not workstation/server) In-Reply-To: <44A1B150.1000904@HiWAAY.net> References: <44A125E8.7060603@HiWAAY.net> <1151420676.3070.368.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151421735.3070.375.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <44A1B150.1000904@HiWAAY.net> Message-ID: <1151462533.7785.14.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 17:29 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > I understand this point quite well, how do I check that ? I have 3 > HDD's hooked up to the onboard (Foxconn 865A-01 i865 mbd) IDE > controller, I didn't think that they went through the PCI bus, just > other peripherials (NIC's, for example). _All_ Intel i8xx series MCH designs have a single ICH that connects via a 64-bit@66MHz (533MBps) PCI bus. Then virtually _all_ peripherals use a _shared_ 32-bit@33MHz (133MBps) PCI bus that is bridged to the ICH's 533Mbps uplink to the MCH. The NIC may or may not be such -- depending on the ICH. I'm quite sure _all_ ATA (and SATA) channels are "shared" on that 32-bit@33MHz (133MBps) bus. That's because *100%* of i8xx systems are designed for _desktop_ usage, _not_ server (or even workstation for that matter). Anyone who tells you otherwise should be slapped silly. Intel's "equivalent generation" workstation/entry-server chipset is the E72xx series with an _optional_ Intel 6x00 PCI64/PCI-X series hub _separate_ from the ESB6300 ICH (the workstation/server equivalent of the i8xx ICH). Their professional server chipset is the E75xx series. Both are based on the ServerWorks ServerSet III/IV "Grand Champion" (GC) PCI64/PCI-X bridging. The newer i9xx series MCH designs have a single ICH that connects via 4-8 PCIe channels. Several of those channels are often used for NIC and SATA channels. In addition to the E723x/753x series workstation/server chipsets with PCIe (as well as with optional 6700 PCI-X bridge), there is a new Intel 5000 series that natively does PCIe (with optional 6700 PCI-X bridge). [ NOTE: We've covered this before. The i865/875 has only 1/8 - 1/16th the bridged PCI I/O of _any_ E72xx/75xx chipset. The i865 should _never_ be used in a production environment and the i875 is definitely a _desktop_ only chipset. Do not use it as a power workstation or not even as an entry server. ] > I am backing stuff up from the HDD's on *this* box to the new tape > drive, *after* this box gathers its near-line backup over the network > from the other 4 boxen. I just ordered the above card, BTW, thanx :-). But understand, the transfer still requires _separate_ transfers for: - Disc to memory - Memory to tape So 2x the transfer. For LTO-1, you're probably okay as long as the system is doing _nothing_ else. But for LTO-2, you're definitely saturating the 32-bit@33MHz PCI badly. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From wam at HiWAAY.net Wed Jun 28 00:57:38 2006 From: wam at HiWAAY.net (William A. Mahaffey III) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:53 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: LUNA: Re: 68-pin SCSI card for Linux box .... -- i865/875 = desktop (not workstation/server) In-Reply-To: <1151462533.7785.14.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <44A125E8.7060603@HiWAAY.net> <1151420676.3070.368.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151421735.3070.375.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <44A1B150.1000904@HiWAAY.net> <1151462533.7785.14.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <44A20C42.7030203@HiWAAY.net> Bryan J. Smith wrote: >On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 17:29 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > > >>I understand this point quite well, how do I check that ? I have 3 >>HDD's hooked up to the onboard (Foxconn 865A-01 i865 mbd) IDE >>controller, I didn't think that they went through the PCI bus, just >>other peripherials (NIC's, for example). >> >> > >_All_ Intel i8xx series MCH designs have a single ICH that connects via >a 64-bit@66MHz (533MBps) PCI bus. Then virtually _all_ peripherals use >a _shared_ 32-bit@33MHz (133MBps) PCI bus that is bridged to the ICH's >533Mbps uplink to the MCH. The NIC may or may not be such -- depending >on the ICH. I'm quite sure _all_ ATA (and SATA) channels are "shared" >on that 32-bit@33MHz (133MBps) bus. > >That's because *100%* of i8xx systems are designed for _desktop_ usage, >_not_ server (or even workstation for that matter). Anyone who tells >you otherwise should be slapped silly. > >Intel's "equivalent generation" workstation/entry-server chipset is the >E72xx series with an _optional_ Intel 6x00 PCI64/PCI-X series hub >_separate_ from the ESB6300 ICH (the workstation/server equivalent of >the i8xx ICH). Their professional server chipset is the E75xx series. >Both are based on the ServerWorks ServerSet III/IV "Grand Champion" (GC) >PCI64/PCI-X bridging. > >The newer i9xx series MCH designs have a single ICH that connects via >4-8 PCIe channels. Several of those channels are often used for NIC and >SATA channels. In addition to the E723x/753x series workstation/server >chipsets with PCIe (as well as with optional 6700 PCI-X bridge), there >is a new Intel 5000 series that natively does PCIe (with optional 6700 >PCI-X bridge). > >[ NOTE: We've covered this before. The i865/875 has only 1/8 - 1/16th >the bridged PCI I/O of _any_ E72xx/75xx chipset. The i865 should >_never_ be used in a production environment and the i875 is definitely a >_desktop_ only chipset. Do not use it as a power workstation or not >even as an entry server. ] > > > >>I am backing stuff up from the HDD's on *this* box to the new tape >>drive, *after* this box gathers its near-line backup over the network >>from the other 4 boxen. I just ordered the above card, BTW, thanx :-). >> >> > >But understand, the transfer still requires _separate_ transfers for: >- Disc to memory >- Memory to tape > >So 2x the transfer. For LTO-1, you're probably okay as long as the >system is doing _nothing_ else. But for LTO-2, you're definitely >saturating the 32-bit@33MHz PCI badly. > > OK .... so for an LTO-1, on an *IDLE* system (1:45 AM, nobody logged on) working alone (*not* across an NIC), I should be AOK, oui ? -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/attachments/20060627/314cf8fc/attachment.html From b.j.smith at ieee.org Wed Jun 28 01:19:37 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:53 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: LUNA: Re: 68-pin SCSI card for Linux box .... -- i865/875 = desktop (not workstation/server) In-Reply-To: <44A20C42.7030203@HiWAAY.net> References: <44A125E8.7060603@HiWAAY.net> <1151420676.3070.368.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151421735.3070.375.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <44A1B150.1000904@HiWAAY.net> <1151462533.7785.14.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <44A20C42.7030203@HiWAAY.net> Message-ID: <1151471978.7785.28.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 23:57 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > OK .... so for an LTO-1, on an *IDLE* system (1:45 AM, nobody logged > on) working alone (*not* across an NIC), I should be AOK, oui ? Yes. In most cases, you'll be "okay," but you'll have some stream delays, performance issues, etc... As far as I know, LTO drives dynamically reduce their linear speed to make up for starved data streams with negligible additional wear on the head/cartridge. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From justinkz at gmail.com Wed Jun 28 11:03:22 2006 From: justinkz at gmail.com (Justin M. Keyes) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:53 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Good read on the future of writing code -- programmer viewpoint (i.e., gross ignorance ; -) In-Reply-To: <46f680d0606251908y5bd288a4xe6ddce8908393a3d@mail.gmail.com> References: <41F38B9A.6020007@ij.net> <1106507610.2633.511.camel@localhost.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <46f680d0606251908y5bd288a4xe6ddce8908393a3d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53b562310606280803j1d13c912m5317bf23c2d76bb3@mail.gmail.com> > From: Bryan J. Smith > Date: Jan 23, 2005 3:13 PM > Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Good read on the future of writing code -- > programmer viewpoint (i.e., gross ignorance ;-) > To: "This is the PC Support list." > > > On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 03:33, paddy wrote: > > Bryan; > > Don't know if you have come across this article but it seems that , once > > again, times have changed . > > http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm > > First off, this is an article written by a programmer for programmers. > Programmers _think_ they understand CPUs, but they do _not_. Data > organization != microprocessor design -- far from it. > > For example, "HyperThreading" is an Intel _marketing_ approach by which > the OS uses the chip _inefficiently_ to do what the CPU should do > _internally_. Intel uses this because they have yet to build an x86 CPU > with register renaming, out-of-order execution and other goodies, unlike > AMD. HyperThreading is _not_applicable_ to newer CPUs -- only old CPU > designs like Intel's 12-year old 7-issue i686 (Pentium Pro). > > Modern CPUs use _internal_ optimizations that are far _more_ efficient > than using the OS to "context switch" between 2 different threads like > they were full CPUs with their own registers and units. That is very, > very _inefficient_, which is why HyperThreading can often result in > _slower_ performance than without it on Intel x86 CPUs (because of the > added CPU overhead). This ignorance en-masse just drives people like me > up-the-wall (and don't get me started on "Centrino" technology ;-). > > Now, back to the article, here is what is _really_ happening in the CPU > world: > > 1. More run-time optimization in-chip > 2. Virtualization > 3. Removal of the traditional instruction set (whoo hoo!) > 4. Removal of the clock (finally!) > > #1 is obvious, Intel is try to "modernize" their x86 CPUs for the first > time in 12 years. The i686 (Pentium Pro) IA-32 was designed to scale > from 200MHz to 1GHz as Intel thought the IA-64 Itanium would be out by > 2000 and replacing the i686. Unfortunately, IA-64's pure > EPIC+Predication (pure programmer concepts) _failed_ to work in silicon > as designed (again, too many programmers not listening to engineers ;-), > and Intel was stuck "retrofitting" the i686 IA-32 into P4 IA-32 and > "Yamhill Prescott" IA-32e. Now Intel has temporarily gone back to the > original i686 which has been extended to 1.5GHz and even 2.1+GHz with > other techniques than inefficiently extending the pipes (which is what > the P4/Prescott do, but can't pass 3.8GHz). > > Intel is basically working on "Yamhill2" will finally bring register > renaming, out-of-order execution (OO) and a better branch predictor unit > (BPU) to the scene. If Intel succeeds in this by 2006, AMD will have > its first _real_ competition in an _solid_ ALU+FPU, and not anymore > _joke_ of SIMD instructions that are 100% _marketing_ (largely to > programmers). > > AMD isn't Scott-free either though. Their aging Athlon core released in > 1999 was only designed to scale from 500MHz to 3GHz, and 3GHz is turning > more into 2.6GHz right now. Although not as old as Intel i686, it's > still 6 years old, and a new architecture is warranted. But it's > obvious AMD new this, because they designed Opteron with limitations > like only 40-bit physical addressing (reusing EV6) and 1MB of L2 (even > though EV6 is capable of 8MB) and other details, because they knew it > would not be around for too much longer. Because the sheer design of > i486-compatible 48-bit addressing AMD x86-64, including the PAE52 > "programmer" model just suggests virtualization, which brings us to the > next point. > > #2 is virtualization. x86 is inefficient and a PITA. Plus there is the > real issue that to maintain i486 TLB compatibility, only 48-bit or > 256TiB. 256TiB is closer than you think. In fact, Opteron only > supports 40-bit or 1TiB (EV6), and 1TiB is 64 x 4-way, 16GB Opteron 800 > systems in a HyperTransport cluster. And that's before we even look at > memory mapped I/O considerations, which the Opteron does on-chip too. > > Virtualization is the _evolution_ of multi-core (and well _beyond_ > hyperthreading for that matter, which is an Intel hack for an early '90s > CPU design ;-). It is the concept that there is a main "control unit" > that offers two or more "virtualized" instances of x86-64. How the OS > will uses these instances, it's up to the OS, but it's very likely that > there will be a virtualizing OS to match, that handles the main "control > unit," and then virtualizes multiple "real" OSes underneath it over > various, dynamically assigned CPU "instances." In fact, VMWare already > offers its own, standalone OS for doing this on large-scale (4-32 CPU), > shared memory systems. So it will be the first candidate. > > For compatibility, I'm sure when running a single, "real" OS, > virtualized CPUs will look like multiple CPUs, just like traditional > multi-cores do. So you'll just need an OS with support for how many > cores it can provide. Maybe the OS will offer advanced support for the > main "control unit," so it can offer additional features. But for all > intents and purposes, it is multi-core because one OS controls _all_ > CPUs/cores. > > #3 and #4 bring us back to the original problem of the microprocessor -- > designed by programmers for programmers. > > Before the integrated circuit, programmers uses transistors to build > boolean gates. Thinking arithmetic, they build circuits that took > operands and put them through an operator -- thus, the Arithmetic Logic > Unit (ALU) was born. The operator+operand was known as an > "instruction," and it was coded into some variable length stream of one > or more bytes. With the integrated circuit, we needed a "control" -- > the part that replaces the mathematician and says "go to the next step," > we got the "clock." > > The ALU did one thing at a time. It completed all traditional steps -- > fetch, decode, execute -- all done step-by-step on the "clock" -- before > the next "instruction." Some processors also offered an equivalent > Floating Point Unit (FPU) for decimal arithmetic, and even trigonometry > later on. > > Once we moved from transistors to integrated circuits to the eventual > microprocessor, this was carried over. The "instruction" or "machine > code" was a 1st generation (1g) programming language, designed by > programmer for programmers. Rather obviously, even before the > integrated circuit, people came up with a 2nd generation (2g) > programming language by creating English memonics that could be > "assembled" in 1g machine code "instructions." Assembler has the same > rules of the ALU, which meant each assembler language for each CPU was > different. > > We call this complex instruction set computation (CISC) -- very complex > instructions designed to do many details in hardware that programmers > needed. In the early '80s, the Intel 8088 and 8086 took over, and its > "x86" instruction set of variable length "instruction words" of 8-bit to > even 160-bit, became widespread. > > By the early '80s, many physicists and engineers realized we made the > biggest mistake in the universe. The programmer instruction set is > _not_ idea for computing. It was clear the concepts of pipelining > (multiple stages being executed simultaneously) and superscalar > (multiple pipes where stages could be pipelined) were never designed for > sequential "instructions." The instructions were way too complex. Some > instructions took a few cycles while others took dozens. Worse yet, > they were variable length -- which is the killer from the standpoint of > multiple MEAGs/"one-hots" (which selects the unit/datapath), let alone > their optimization. > > Luckily for the physicists and engineers, use of 3rd generation (3g) > languages were becoming widespread. The C compiler had become the > absolute of all other higher languages. So as long as programmers used > the C compiler, or another language that output its instructions into C > code. This allowed the creation of reduced instruction set computation > (RISC), by which instructions were simple, closer together in number of > cycles, and had _fixed_ operator and fixed options/operand that _only_ > worked on registers (_never_ memory other than LOAD/STORE). > > The programmers chastized RISC, but programmers no longer designed CPUs, > engineers did. Engineers who had been educated in semiconductor layout > and analog concepts like electromagnetic fields (EMF), which were a real > issue. By the late '80s, CPUs could no longer simply be designed with > digital logic -- the analog effects of sub-500nm had to be considered > too. And because of the C compiler, the engineers could now present a > "3g" interface to programmers, because there was no way the programmers > could understand how to optimize code for a superscalar RISC processor. > > The first two RISC designs were Berkeley RISC and Standford MIPS. The > former was first, but the latter was first-to-market. Ironically, the > company named after the Stanford University Network (SUN) which sold, > like everyone else, various MIPS1000, 2000 and even some 3000, systems, > choose to develop Berkeley RISC into today's SPARC. Sun, who had > quickly become a major provider of growing Internet systems by the late > '80s, basically demolished the standardization efforts around MIPS. > >From there, IBM and Motorola collaborated on a PC-oriented instance of > IBM's Power, the PowerPC. SGI stuck with MIPS. And Digital and Intel > started to collaborate on a new processor design. > > At the time, Intel had already committed itself to a 5-issue, > superscalar x86 implementation known as Pentium (not only for the 5th > generation x86, but also for the 5-pipelined design -- 2 ALU, 1 FPU). > Digital was building the world's most anal RISC design, a 7-issue, true > 64-bit chip that only had 32-bit and 64-bit instructions, not even a 8 > or 16-bit LOAD/STORE (although these were added in the 21164 due to > programmer demand ;-). Intel looked at Digital and thought they could > due better with their EPIC+Predication approach (below), and broke the > agreement. But not before taking many of the concepts and building a > new 7-issue "sister" to Pentium in the Pentium Pro. This, of course, > resulted in a lawsuit a few years later. > > Digital, well ahead of its time, recognized that instruction set > emulation could be achieved with good performance and perfect > compatibility. The only constraint was that the emulation had to be on > the _same_ operating environment, with the same operating environment > structures and objects. That's why Alpha, unlike almost any other > modern processor, was designed with *0* backward compatibility. Digital > found that on its new 64-bit RISC AXP instruction set, they could not > only fully emulate 32-bit CISC VAX instructions, but they could "binary > recompile" them into new 64-bit RISC AXP instructions that ran > _native_. Again, the only constraint was that this had to be on the > same OS, so the same data organization could be guaranteed. Most famous > of this was FX!32, which allowed NT/x86 programs and even low-level > services to run on NT/AXP. Linux and other processor/OS "binary > translation" followed as well. > > [ NOTE: Transmeta's VLIW architecture exploits this concept. Build a > very generic, anal RISC architecture (with a huge 128-bit RISC > instructions, most RISC is 32-40-bit instructions), and then embedded > the translation software in firmware, and wala ... you have a processor > that can emulate _any_ other processor, as long as the software is for > the _same_ OS as the firmware (typically the firmware is good for > Windows and, of course, Linux). There is also a native Linux/TS port > too (no translation). ] > > Because Alpha was so anal, the 21064 ramped up speeds to 300MHz > overnight, the 21164 to 500MHz and well beyond after that. > Unfortunately, just as the 21264 was in development, and Samsung > produced a 1.2GHz 21164 _years_ before AMD or Intel did the same, > Digital changed focus in 1996. CEO Palmer started selling off > everything, first the fabs of Digital Semiconductor and then the Alpha > itself, to Intel. The Alpha remained largely at 350nm, and Samsung was > too busy with memory parts to dedicate its fabs to anything else. > > The reason Intel broke with Digital is because they were already talking > to HP. Like IBM brought Power to Motorola, HP brought PA-RISC to > Intel. Intel liked HP's idea because it was x86 compatible in hardware, > whereas Digital was talking software-based "binary translation" that was > unproven at the time. HP-Intel had a new idea for RISC. Although RISC > was far better at keeping superscalar pipes full than CISC, it was still > only about 60-70% compared to 30-40%. That means in RISC, 30-40% of the > stages of various pipes in the CPU still go unused. There was also the > issue of a branch mispredict, by which the CPU completely stalls as it > has to flush all pipes to ensure no incorrect computation remains. In a > 7-issue, 10-stage superscalar architecture like the i686 -- that's up to > 70 stages (virtually hundreds of equivalent cycles), and pipelines were > only getting longer. > > [ NOTE: Branch prediction is a necessity in superscalar architectures. > Because different pipes are executing different pieces of code > (especially so in OO/register renaming designs), as well as pipelines > are fetching and executing latter instructions in the pipes themselves, > the CPU is often executing on data beyond a branch. As such, the branch > prediction unit (BPU) ensures the correct branch will be taken. If not, > everything's gotta go because the CPU was executing code with values > that have most likely changed. The difference between the tested 94% > accuracy of the i686 BPU and the 97-98% of the Athlon BPU is orders of > magnitude. Not good when you have something like the "Prescott" with > 7+2 (2 SSE) pipes of 40 (yes _fourty_) stages -- bam! There is a 6% > chance that over a thousand cycles will be _wasted_ everytime the P4 > hits a branch. > > Compare this to the 3% that 9 pipes of 18 stages will be wasted in the > Athlon, let alone the Athlon has "stateful" mechanisms that can save > some stages. The Athlon has _internal_ register renaming and OO logic > that can keep track of multiple, independent data flows so it can > identify what code is and is not affected by a branch mispredict. > Intel's HyperThreading does this at the _OS_ to do the same for 2 > threads explicitly, because it lacks the features internally. So a > branch mispredict in a HyperThreaded CPU is about half of the cycles, > whatever cycles were working on the thread affected. The "cost" of > Intel's approach is that there is a _massive_ overhead cost in OS > context switching, and the software must be well threaded to take > advantage of it. Lastly, HyperThreading is _never_ as efficient as 2 > real CPUs, let alone _never_ as efficient as having a _real_ internal > design with register renaming and OO. ] > > The HP-Intel solutions was known as Explicitly Parallel Instruction > Computation (EPIC) with Branch Predication. EPIC relies on 100% > compiler-time optimizations to schedule 3 instructions to execute > simultaneously. And instead of Branch Prediction, they used Branch > Predication, execute _both_ paths and discard the result. The software > simulations worked well for both, as the programmer ideals behind them > said they would. When Intel first announced the first Itanium in > "Merced," and the details of how IA-64 works, Digital Semiconductor > instantly lambasted it. > > They said that Intel could not solely rely on compile-time > optimizations, and that branch predication would waste cycles, more than > the cost of a branch mispredict. They predicted that Intel maybe would > reach 80% efficiency with EPIC, but nothing as good as RISC with > run-time optimizations. And the idea to make IA-64 partially PA-RISC > and partially x86 wasn't going to work, either you make it fully > compatible (not worth it in Digital's eyes), or you use "binary > translation" which Digital was firmly committed to. > > Shortly afterwards, most of Digital had been broken up. Some from > Digital Semiconductor started Alpha Processor, Inc., which eventually > became API Networks (now an east coast R&D arm of AMD). Others went to > Samsung, AMD, etc... AMD was already working with Digital on licensing > the 40-bit/1TiB EV6 interconnect and building the first non-32-bit/4GiB > Intel GTL/GTL+ (i586/i686) PC bus signaling platform. And they had much > grander schemes for 64-bit, but x86 compatible, and virtualization. [ > And this was just 1997 ] > > Intel was dedicated to EPIC. 5 years after Digital released its first > 500MHz 21164, Intel released the Merced. It's FPU couldn't even muster > the performance of what the 500MHz 21164 was capable of, let alone what > the 1GHz 21164 could, and the forthcoming 667MHz 21264 would do. EPIC > failed to keep the pipes full. Branch predication ended up costing more > cycles than it saved. And Intel quickly realized that Digital was > right, compile-time optimizations were based on optimizing _programmer_ > concepts -- the instruction set -- not physics/engineering concepts, the > P/N substrates and even higher digital logic into usable units. > > The 90nm Itanium2 was released just a few years ago at speeds up to > 833MHz. It's competitor, released a earlier, was the yester-year fabbed > 250nm Alpha 21264 at much slower speeds of 667MHz and 733MHz. The > Itanium2, with retrofitted OO and a new branch predictor unit was even > slower versus the 21264 at floating point, than the original Itanium wa > against the 21164. But the Itanium2 was still adopted for many 32+ way > systems, because it was cheaper than RISC processors like the Alpha > produced in far less quantity. _All_ of these systems use proprietary > NUMA interconnects, not the standard "shared bus" of the Itanium, much > like proprietary NUMA Xeon systems in the past, instead of GTL+. > > Last year Intel released a new "software enhancement" for Itanium2. It > allows x86 instructions to run much faster in software than hardware. > What is it? Yeah, that's right, Digital FX!32 adopted Itanium so it can > run NT/x86 on NT/IA-64, Linux/x86 on Linux/IA-64, etc... faster. Funny, > no? > > Which brings us to "Yamhill." Most in the IT industry just thought > Yamhill is an AMD x86-64 instruct set clone (with the processors known > as AMD64), what Intel calls IA-32e (with the "Prescott" processors known > as EM64T). One major problem there. AMD64 is more than an instruction > set, it's a NUMA/multi-bus, with EV6 (40-bit/1TiB) addressing. EM64T > still relies on GTL+ (or AGTL+, which is Rambus signaling for Socket-423 > and LGA-775). GTL+ is _strictly_ 32-bit/4GiB, with a paging option for > PAE36 (32-bit/64GiB) because of how the i486TLB uses a 32-bit offset > from a 16-bit segment (whereby the last 4-bits of the segment overhang > the 32-bits of offset). But it's still, physically 32-bit (even if > programmers think it is 36-bit at the register). > > _Never_ deploy EM64T where more than 4GB is used, especially not for I/O > intensive applications. EM64T lacks an I/O MMU, so it cannot safely > guarantee memory mapped I/O above 4GiB. AMD64, heck even AMD32, use a > 40-bit I/O MMU (this is the on-chip AGPgart in AMD32, which must be > on-chip in point-to-point "switched" EV6, not on-chipset in "shared bus" > GTL+) to guarantee DMA/DiME (DiME is for AGP/PCIe) cache-memory > consistency between CPU and I/O (especially AGP/PCIe which acts like > like a CPU, directly using system memory simultaneously with > processors). > > I predict that like Pentium that saw the Pentium Pro developed almost > simultaneously, "Yamhill2" maybe call it "Pentium 64" is also in > development. The first "Prescott Yamhill" was like the P4, a quick, 18 > month refit. The second "Pentium 64" will be the new virtualized chip, > one that shares the same 53-bit interconnect and LGA socket with > Itanium3. You'll have a variant of the IA-64 "control unit," with > x86-64 instances. And these new x86-64 instances _will_ have modern > register renaming, OO and a new BPU. If you're running a legacy OS, the > instances will just look like multicores. > > And it will compete better with AMD's new 64-bit processor series. The > playing field will be even once again, although Intel still leads AMD in > fab technology some 9-12 months, so Intel _may_ be on-top. Unless AMD > completes their design first, and something tells me they will (because > x86-64's PAE52 (52-bit registers for "programmers") was designed for > virtualization -- something Intel didn't realize until _after_ AMD made > it public). > > - But after x86, instruction sets are _dead_ > > Of course, now we're still talking CISC/RISC operator+operand > instruction sets. Virtualization will slowly but surely remove them, > because the "main" chip won't have a traditional instruction set, it > will just have its x86 "instances" that do. If you want to see the > difference between "programmer" thinking and "engineer" thinking, > compare assembler/machine code to VHDL/Verilog. In a nutshell, the new > "instruction sets" that will _not_ be doable below 3g (the C compiler) > will look more like VHDL/Verilog logic, and not traditional > operand+opcode approaches. > > [ I'm not saying VHDL/Verilog will be how they are programmed. But the > concepts are much closer to the circuits than traditional > operator+operand machine code. ] > > The programmer has left the microprocessor building ... yes! > > In reality, the _first_ processor that will do away with instruction > sets is the new Sony "Cell" processor. Because it needs a special new C > compiler for this new instruction set, and an OS that is built on it, > guess what this solution is? GNU/Linux of course. Since it's an > embedded system, they only need a minimal OS, and whatever > libraries/support they build around it. Like Sony, Nintendo is already > using GNU/Linux as their development platform for their current > platforms. So it will be interesting if Nintendo goes to GNU/Linux in > the platform itself (let alone the architecture choice) like Sony is > with the Cell-based PS3. > > It is uncertain what IBM-Microsoft are up to with Xbox2, but Xbox2 will > _not_ be a PC (and probably not compatible either). Last I heard it's a > new variant of Power, possibly a non-traditional instruction set too. > Unlike GNU/Linux, this is going to be a real PITA for Microsoft, because > right now the Xbox is DOS+Win, and Sega already tried a console with the > CE kernel which largely sucked. Maybe a new Embedded NT port? > > These new "Cell" approaches (I need to read up on the patents because > I'm not familiar with how they work), probably feed right into the > virtualization approaches too. So it could be very possible for Sony to > offer some PS1/PS2 compatibility. Who knows? > > - The clock as got to go ... > > Intel has already adopted asynchronous techniques inside of some logic > so the gates are not on the clock -- just the gates before/after. This > is how Intel scaled i686 up to 1.4GHz in the P3 originally. I would not > be surprised if that is how they are doing it now with the Pentium-M -- > which is _still_ the traditional i686. The Pentium 4 has basically > _failed_ to reach 4GHz (much less the originally promised 10GHz), and > Intel is going with this Pentium-M refit of the aged i686 core. So > Intel's familiarity with clockless gates may give it an advantage over > AMD in the near future. > > The clock causes a massive EMF to be when all the gates switch. > Theoretically, clockless circuits should use 1/4th the power. In > reality, because a clock is still involved outside the chip for > interconnect, 50-60% is typical because some gates inherently switch on > similar cycles. At least this is what we found at Theseus Logic with > our NCL08 chip. The lack of EMF generation with clockless is why > Theseus Logic has some work in the smartcard industry. > > At the same time, clockless chips are far more tolerant of EMI than > clocked. The gates are not relying on a signal to switch, so they > cannot be "set off" by a stray EMF or other signal. As such, Theseus > Logic's first partner was a pacemaker vendor, and they are currently > partnered with major aerospace firms for defense applications. Their > 3NCL (Null Convention Logic) dual-rail (0/NUL, 1/NUL) approach is > considered one of the easiest to implement in the industry, whereas > aproaches like packetized boolean (still single-rail 0/1, saving space > over dual-rail) like that in Furber's Amulet (clockless ARM) still has > timing closure issues. Steve Furber is also on Theseus Logic's Board > (has been since 200). > > [ Personal Note/Jab: I can understand all British locale vocals > _except_ Manchester (west/northwest), although Furber has been around > enough that his is has been tamed a bit. ;-] > > The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) predicted that "timing > closure" would require clockless adoption by 2006, and processors will > have to be _completely_ clockless by 2012, to maintain Moore's Law. > Clockless adoption is happening by where partial and even entire units > are now having their gates switch independently of a clock, and only the > portion or entire unit itself is on the clock. E.g., the clock is still > used for knowing when to push through the next stage. Intel seems to be > doing this now, at least in part, with the newer Pentium-M designs. > NOTE: I have not confirmed this, but it is a logical assumption based > on how the i686 was redesigned beyond it's original 1GHz barrier in the > P3 by Intel's own commentary that async _was_ used. Bryan, now that I'm taking a computer organization and architecture class, I searched my mail for "opcodes" and "branch prediction" and found the above email. I'm finally able to follow about 70% of it. It's fascinating! When you say "entire units are now having their gates switch independently of a clock", what do you mean by "unit"? The entire microprocessor? In today's desktop processor (e.g., Intel Core Duo, AMD Sempron, etc.), what percentage of the chip would you say is clockless? What percentage of the motherboard is clockless? Was SIA's prediction about "timing closure" met in 2006 yet (it seems Moore's law has been stagnant for years now...)? Thanks for your insight... I just read an old Technology Review article on clockless chips that I had in a stack of papers, and guess what... it mentions Theseus Logic! Ha! I found a link to the article: http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/async/misc/technologyreview_oct_01_2001.html -- Justin M. Keyes From dmckenna at thelimucompany.com Wed Jun 28 11:45:50 2006 From: dmckenna at thelimucompany.com (Damien McKenna) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:53 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- centralize for lower TCO In-Reply-To: <1151441126.3070.537.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <5764F026-90BF-4A63-A096-1C8472000C0C@thelimucompany.com> <1151435333.3070.477.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <55C60399-A757-4A77-83D5-460945FB2BAD@thelimucompany.com> <1151441126.3070.537.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <46EA3D50-DAD8-4BED-8802-D38747F329DD@thelimucompany.com> On Jun 27, 2006, at 4:45 PM, Bryan J. Smith wrote: >> Because they don't make any good SATA cards that are plain PCI and >> not PCI-X or PCI-E, unless I'm missing something regarding >> compatibility between 64bit PCI and PCI-X? > > Huh? The number of times I've typed "SATA" instead of "SAS" is getting to annoy me. I meant SAS. > The $100 3Ware Escalade 8006-2LP is a 64-bit/66MHz PCI card, universal > 3.3V with 5V tolerance. It works in 66MHz PCI-X slots too. Then just > use a couple of eSATA cables and you're set (although try to keep the > length down). Grand. Any reason not to use a $20 el cheapo card? > Any card that has an "external SATA" port on it is a _gimmick_. > A $10 cable converter will do the same. ;-> ... if your machine has internal connectors. Ours don't. >> It is Ultra160 and it shares its bus with the older DLT-1 drive. > > Huh, oh. Is that older DLT-1 drive single-ended (SE)? > If so, then you're bus is running at 40MBps, _not_ 160MBps. Good point, I'll look into it. >> We only ever have one drive working at any one time, they're just >> sitting there until needed. Also, the server has two channels, one >> internal and one external. > > Is the DLT internal? If so, then it's on a different channel (good). Nope, both tape drives are external, all of the internal disk drives are on a separate channel. >> Cobian Backup, five minutes to set up, forget it afterwards. Next? > > You just lost me there. You were talking about workstation considerations, using freeware like Cobian Backup I really don't care about any server side fanciness as I'd rather use a free program at the workstation level that is simple and works well than putz at the server level. On Jun 27, 2006, at 5:00 PM, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > Here's a 2-port eSATA bracket with 5" cables for $5.98: > http://www.cooldrives.com/duesiipcipob.html Nice, and they have nice enclosures too. > Remember that SATA shouldn't go longer than 1m (39"), so you don't > want > the rest of the cabling (including the cables internal to any external > closure) to total more than that. I know they talk about "shielded" > eSATA going 2m, but don't count on more than 40" total. OK, shouldn't be a problem but I'll keep it in mind. Thanks. -- Damien McKenna - Web Developer - dmckenna@thelimucompany.com The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014 #include From b.j.smith at ieee.org Wed Jun 28 12:53:50 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:53 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Good read on the future of writing code -- programmer viewpoint (i.e., gross ignorance ; -) In-Reply-To: <53b562310606280803j1d13c912m5317bf23c2d76bb3@mail.gmail.com> References: <41F38B9A.6020007@ij.net> <1106507610.2633.511.camel@localhost.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <46f680d0606251908y5bd288a4xe6ddce8908393a3d@mail.gmail.com> <53b562310606280803j1d13c912m5317bf23c2d76bb3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1151513630.7785.65.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 11:03 -0400, Justin M. Keyes wrote: > Bryan, now that I'm taking a computer organization and architecture > class, I searched my mail for "opcodes" and "branch prediction" and > found the above email. I'm finally able to follow about 70% of it. > It's fascinating! Yes! I honest to God wish programmers had just *1* class on *BASIC* digital architecture. While it doesn't cover that last 20-30% which is largely EE-concepts, it still does wonders for understanding! > When you say "entire units are now having their gates switch > independently of a clock", what do you mean by "unit"? The entire > microprocessor? No. By unit, I mean "ALU" or "FPU" -- and really, I mean "subunits" in those. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From b.j.smith at ieee.org Wed Jun 28 13:54:25 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:53 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- centralize for lower TCO In-Reply-To: <46EA3D50-DAD8-4BED-8802-D38747F329DD@thelimucompany.com> References: <449426DE.5060109@HiWAAY.net> <1150564856.6698.361.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <4494403A.6010605@HiWAAY.net> <1150567476.6698.397.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <3A71D3BC-548D-465D-9A57-EEC7CC3133A3@thelimucompany.com> <1150742953.2761.79.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <1151363814.3070.286.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <5764F026-90BF-4A63-A096-1C8472000C0C@thelimucompany.com> <1151435333.3070.477.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <55C60399-A757-4A77-83D5-460945FB2BAD@thelimucompany.com> <1151441126.3070.537.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> <46EA3D50-DAD8-4BED-8802-D38747F329DD@thelimucompany.com> Message-ID: <1151517265.7785.68.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 11:45 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote: > Grand. Any reason not to use a $20 el cheapo card? Driver/controller/drive incompatibility. 3Ware pretty much gives you piece-of-mind for $100, worth it. You also have hot-plug and RAID-1 options (I highly recommend RAID-1). > ... if your machine has internal connectors. Ours don't. I meant from the 3Ware card. > Nope, both tape drives are external, all of the internal disk drives > are on a separate channel. Not good. You're running your _entire_ SCSI bus at Single-Ended (SE) 40MBps speed, with _no_ Low Voltage Differential (LVD) 160MBps speed. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The existence of Linux has far more to do with the breakup of AT&T's monopoly than anything Microsoft has ever done. From b.j.smith at ieee.org Thu Jun 29 22:36:09 2006 From: b.j.smith at ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:53 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Re: [LeapList] Microsoft's Kill Switch In-Reply-To: <002901c69be8$6c25eaa0$0a10a8c0@molly> Message-ID: <20060630023609.44864.qmail@web32904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> FYI, we typically leave these advo-type posts for other lists. LEAPBS or, better yet, PC_Support are great ones. Hank Lambert wrote: > I found this article quite interesting. > It seems they really aren't in touch with their users. Microsoft has _never_ been in touch with its own professionals. They blame them for their own failures. > We might be seeing a wave of new Linux users with this move. I doubt it, like most things. Maybe some more corporation adoption. But people who run Windows run for other reasons. > Here is the link: > http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=84 > &tag=nl.e539 Two words: SQL Slammer Two latter patches uninstalled the earlier fix that would have prevented it. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own From dave at dgnal.net Fri Jun 30 22:40:21 2006 From: dave at dgnal.net (David Simmons) Date: Tue Oct 31 13:17:53 2006 Subject: [Pc_Support] Socket-AM2 may be the best investment now ... In-Reply-To: <1148952178.2724.430.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> References: <1148952178.2724.430.camel@bert64.oviedo.smithconcepts.com> Message-ID: <1367.71.252.176.10.1151721621.squirrel@qtmail.dgnal.net> > Unless you are going to recycle old DDR SDRAM -- which Socket-754 and > 939 do most excellently -- going directly to Socket-AM2 (new 940) might > be the best move. yes..but still not generally available yet?!?! I went down to MicroCenter (Richardson, Texas) as they have a pretty good selection of BYOPC stuff...no A M2 motherboards or CPU's...guess they're trying to sell all of the existing inventory of AMD stuff?? Dave