Richard Woods wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>
[...]
I suggest that you read this message in its entirety, rather
than try to reply to it piecemeal a line at a time. Then, if
you wish to pursue this further with me, I also suggest that
we take the exchange off line, to private e-mail, or even
perhaps to a telephone call, in order to enhance understanding.
>> The backup in question is one of DATA, not HARDWARE.
>
> I apologize for assuming that the context was sufficient to indicate
> that that's exactly what I meant by "backup" -- data, not hardware.
Ok.
> When Torben Schluentz wrote: "And I don't understand why it should be
> so hard to get a backup up rolling for the old version", I thought
> that he meant, "... to restore ("get rolling") old-version backup
> data to the old-version server hardware. So I replied with an
> explanation of why that was not feasible. When I wrote, "It's a
> hardware delay, not a matter of getting a backup running", I again
> was assuming everyone would understand that I meant "... getting
> backup data restored so that the system can resume running."
Ok. It's easy when exchanging messages, as opposed to having
a conversation, to misunderstand or take things for granted.
Sometimes, even _in_ a conversation :-)
>> I asked the same question, more politely,
>
> I apologize for not having posted a reply sooner to your Wed, 29 Oct
> 2008 22:59:33 -0600 posting to this mailing list. I sometimes am not
> as organized as I need to be, and though I hadn't forgotten your
> posting, I had not yet scanned back over recent Prime Digest text to
> see whether I had made all the replies I intended to make.
Accepted, no problem.
>> and was completely ignored.
>
> No, you weren't ignored. You haven't gotten a response until now,
> but you were not _ignored_.
That's a fair distinction, though one difficult to discern
from this end :-)
Still, correction accepted.
> If you will go to mersenneforum.org and look at the "PrimeNet 5.0
> Upgrade" thread (http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10832),
> you will see that in the last part of post #162 (30 Oct 08) I (using
> the nym "cheesehead") posted an excerpt from your 29 Oct posting and
> then wrote, "As I said above, may I have your help in revising my
> description of the situation, to correct inaccuracies and omissions?
> In particular, is the last post's description of an alternative ("If
> there is a server ...") correct and feasible?"
Ok, I see that. I looked on down, and I don't see where you got
a helpful response to that, (though I did look rather quickly).
> Posts #164 & 165 of that thread are the only responses to my post
> #162, and neither of them actually says anything about my last
> question ("In particular, is the last post's description of an
> alternative ("If there is a server ...") correct and feasible?")
> about what you wrote. I hoped to get a more relevant response, so I
> put that on my "wait a while" list, and went on to other matters.
Ah...
> Obviously (now it is!), the thing for me to have done was to post to
> this mailing list a short response to you saying that I was seeking
> help from more authoritative sources. (Even Microsoft Support did
> that for me recently, but I failed to make the logical connection to
> you.)
No problem.
[...]
>> Whatever hardware is running the current server software could
>> be loaded with a data backup of the older version and be running
>> it NOW.
>
> Oh? You know that to be a fact? (I don't.)
Then I infer that GIMPS is not in control of the hardware on
which the server runs. Is that correct?
>> It could have been running in a few hours, probably less
>> than one day, if a proper data backup existed.
>
> ... and (a) v5 server development would have to stop until the
> replacement disk was obtained, (b) all users who were already working
> on v5 assignments with v25 Prime95/mprime would have to either stop
> also, or downgrade to v24, and (c) the v5 assignment and completion
> data would have to have been back-merged into the v4 database where
> possible (not universally because of the different types of v5
> assignment vs. v4 assignment types).
Apparently, GIMPS does not have the ability to do NAT and IP address
spoofing with its setup, possibly because of not being in control
of its hardware. If one had control of his server hardware, then
he could set up an alternate server IP address on the same machine,
and have it look completely like two different machines, with
different data on them, to the outside world, except that, of course,
the load appied by each IP address would affect the apparent load
on the other.
>> As for me, I don't demand anything from a bunch of people who contribute
>> their own time and money to a project with no remuneration. I do,
>> however, maintain backups of my own machines, and keep them off
>> site. If my house burned down, I could have my own personal
>> computer back up and running, with a loss of just a few day's
>> data, within a few hours. My latest backups I keep at home for
>> convenience, so I'd lose a few days, but on a regular basis
>> I move my older backups off site. Also, since I don't back
>> up every day, I'd lose a few days with any complete hard disc
>> failure, though I could remedy that simply by doing backups
>> every day, should I so chose.
>
> Do you have any actual evidence that the PrimeNet administrators do
> not perform any of those steps, or their equivalent?
First, I made no claims about the GIMPS admins. I did make
claims about myself. The entire block of statements is prefaced
by the phrase "As for me", which phrase is intended to apply to
the entire block of statements. Do you dispute the claims I
made about myself? That would not seem reasonable.
Second, I have evidence that either:
(1) they don't do appropriate backups, or
(2) they don't have control of their own machines, or
(3) they don't understand NAT and IP address spoofing, or
(4) they did not anticipate that anyone would object, or
(5) some other thing that I haven't thought of is intervening.
> Or are you just assuming that because their decisions about bringing
> back up the PrimeNet server do not match what you would have done,
> that necessarily implies that they are incompetent regarding data
> backups?
I don't ever "just assume". I wrote my previous message with,
I thought, enough qualifying phrases in it.
> Can you imagine _any_ possibility in which they do indeed have all
> the data backups you expect of them, but because of the actual
> factors they face, not all of which may be apparent to you, they
> could reasonably make different decisions about how to bring PrimeNet
> back online?
If I were being critical, and didn't include any qualifying phrases
in my message, then this would be a reasonable way to respond. Since I
did include some qualifying phrases, I believe that I already have
indicated that I don't think I have a complete grasp of the totality
of all of objective reality.
>> I _expect_ (not _demand_) that anyone who expends significant amounts
>> of time, effort, and money, and involving the participation and
>> contribution of time, efforts, and monies of other people would, for
>> his own peace of mind, maintain a regular backup schedule with off site
>> storage,
>
> Do you have any actual evidence that PrimeNet administrators do not meet your
> expectation in that regard?
Yes, I do. In fact, I already stated what evidence I have. That
evidence does not point _solely_ to that possibility, as I think
I indicated in previous messages. I did so pretty carefully,
I think. In fact, if you will read what you quoted just
down below, you'll see a qualifying phrase I used.
However that may be...
My expectation includes not only that backups exist,
but that a plan of action including them be in place, that
such plan of action, when carried out, would result in that the
current, supported server would suffer momentary interruption,
not unexpected termination, in a circumstance such as this.
So, I can, in fact, state categorically that PrimeNet admins'
plan does not meet my expectation in this regard. Since I am
the sole arbiter of what my expectation is, that should be the
last word on whether it be met.
If you believe that my expectation is unreasonable, then we simply
have a difference of opinion, I think. That's not a cause for
dispute in this case, I trow.
>> and have tested his ability to recover from total hardware
>> loss. I have done so with my own personal computer, which does not
>> involve any other persons, their time, efforts, or monies.
>>
>> I am _shocked_ and _dismayed_ (not _angry_) that this was, apparently,
>> not done.
>
> Do you have any actual evidence that what you allege was not done
> was, in reality, not done? If so, what is that evidence?
I don't understand why you would object to my statement. It is
carefully qualified. What I allege is
this was, apparently, not done
Now, since I am the only competent judge of what is apparent to me,
I don't see how anyone could dispute the correctness of that statement.
I don't allege that no backup was done.
I do allege that it apparently was not done.
There is a difference.
I state that there is an appearance that there is no backup.
I do not state that there is no backup.
Since I am not the only one who inferred that there might
not be a backup, I think that the use of the word "apparent"
and its derivatives is perfectly correct and apt.
>> I _hope_ (not _demand_) that a periodic backup regimen is being
>> initiated, if, as it appears, no such backup schedule exists.
>
> What, _exactly_, causes it to appear to you that no such backup
> schedule exists? I have not yet seen you describe even one such
> cause.
Inability of those in charge of the project to run, concurrently,
v4 and v5 servers. The statement here was not that the admins
were unwilling to run both the v4 and v5 servers, but that they
were unable so to do, until some hardware was obtained.
>> I believe it is completely appropriate that those who, understandably,
>> expect, as do I, that such a backup schedule would exist in these
>> circumstances, would be shocked, dismayed, and discouraged from
>> continuing with the project, given the apparent lack of foresight
>> on the part of those responsible, especially since the
>> response seems to indicate a belief that the current emergency
>> situation is one which was not under their control, when in
>> actuality, a proper backup would mean that there was, in fact,
>> no emergency at all, but rather only a momentary lapse of
>> service.
>
> So, too, do I think that after publicly making such derogatory
Which derogatory remarks?
I tried to be careful not to present my inferences as anything other
than that. I do not know what the facts are, of course. I do know what
is apparent, and what my inferences are.
> remarks about PrimeNet administration without having presented any
> evidence that such remarks are justified, it is entirely appropriate
> to expect you to promptly present or describe the actual evidence you
> have to justify those remarks.
Erm, your messages? The public statements to the effect that
it is impossible to run v4 and v5 servers on the same machine,
when I, certainly not a network expert, can think of two (2)
different methods to accomplish that. One of the methods I
can think of does not even require that the machine running
the v5 server to be the same architecture machine. For example,
the v4 server might be built to run on an Intel architecture
machine, and the v5 server might be running on a Sun Sparc,
for all I know, but that would not prevent running the v4
server on the Sun Sparc, using techniques I am familiar with,
and occasionally use on my own machine.
The only assumptions which I have not noticed I made, but which
have become apparent to me after reading this message, is that
the people responsible for GIMPS are in charge of their own
machines. If that is not the case, then of course they have to
deal with what their suppliers are willing to do, and within
whatever budget (if any) they have. Also, that this is THE GIMPS
list.
If the GIMPS managers are capable of managing an IP server, and have
good backups with good access, and are in control of their own
machines, then there is nothing to prevent running v4 and v5
concurrently on the same machine, except possibly lack of RAM,
and swap space on the disc.
>> I believe it is perfectly reasonable for the participants in this
>> project to expect, and receive, an explanation for why a simple
>> disc failure resulted in an emergency. No such explanation has
>> been forthcoming. I believe it is perfectly reasonable for the
>> participants in this project to expect, and receive, a description
>> of what plan of action has been implemented to prevent a similar
>> future occurrence from being an emergency. No such description
>> has been forthcoming.
>
> ... on this Prime mailing list, perhaps, but this is not the only medium of
> communication within GIMPS.
>
> Can you make the same accusation ("No such explanation ...") about
> information presented at mersenneforum.org? You wouldn't be this
> assertive if you weren't confident about having all the relevant
> information, now, would you?
I am confident. Why are you so aggressive? Messages were posted
here. They were not responded to here. That's all that needs to
be said.
No explanation has been forthcoming.
If you get sued in court, you make your response to that court.
You don't publish a response in the Seminole, Texas Sentinel,
and then insist that it constitutes a response.
>> I do not believe that it is reasonable for the participants
>> in this project to _demand_ anything as a result of the current
>> emergency. I do think it is reasonable for the participants to
>> re evaluate their willingness to continue with the project,
>> given the unexpected current situation.
>
> ... after ensuring that they had _all_ relevant information, including that
> available on mersenneforum.org, right?
No, after reading everything available HERE.
So far, there is still no response forthcoming, in my book.
[...]
> Do you have any evidence that PrimeNet administrators have not made regular
> backups?
This is tiresome. I have evidence that they may not have, which is
all I claim.
> Have you _asked_ any PrimeNet administrator directly? (I am not a
> PrimeNet administrator, just an interested user.)
Yes, I have. In this forum. THIS is the GIMPS forum. Since the
question at hand relates to users of GIMPS, THIS is the forum
where it should be answered, should it appear here.
Or is this forum mis-named? I suppose that is a possibility.
Here I've been subscribed for years, thinking this is THE GIMPS
forum. Is it not?
Did you request any information from them? Did you get a response?
Didn't you state above that you had made such a request for
information and not gotten one? Perhaps I have misunderstood what
you said.
>> Not having a plan of action, or having an inadequate plan of
>> action, is a plan for a failure not being a momentary nuisance,
>> but an emergency resulting in a hasty and not well thought
>> out response. The only way to ascertain whether a plan of action
>> is adequate is actually to test it, by simulating a complete
>> loss of whatever the plan is supposed to protect.
>
> So, when have you directly asked a primeNet administrator whether any
> of the items in the preceding sentences applied to them?
I didn't claim that it does. I stated a fact. Do you disagree
with the fact I stated? What part of it is incorrect?
Or, where do I state that they do not have a plan of action?
You are reading between lines, not reading the lines, I think,
and I did not write between the lines. I meant and intended
to state exactly what is written, nothing more, nothing less.
However, the fact that there are GIMPS participants who are
considering leaving the project is an indication that the plan
of action, whatever it may be, is in some regard inadequate.
It is, in demonstrable fact, inadequate completely to retain
the confidence and loyalty of all GIMPS participants.
That may not be a goal of the GIMPS admins.
>> Plans of action need regular review, and modification.
>> If, as seems likely, the current plan of action is "Rely upon
>> RAID for data recovery, and obtain a replacement disc", then
>> it seems that the plan has perhaps been reviewed insufficiently
>> often.
>
> Oh? Exactly why does it seem likely to you that the current PrimeNet
> plan of action is as you accuse? What evidence do you have?
Messages placed here to the effect that "it is impossible to
load and run v4 on the hardware running v5". Since I do know for
a fact that it is possible to run multiple IP servers on a single
piece of hardware, I infer that the reason it is impossible
is that it cannot be loaded, not that it cannot be run.
In any case, the careful use of the word "likely" is all
that I really need to point to, since that removes all
possibility that I am making an accusation, as you seem
to believe.
>> Part of an extended plan of action is a review of
>> current practices, and modification of same, as necessary,
>> with retest.
>
> Have you reviewed the current practices of PrimeNet in a manner which
> goes beyond simply making negative assumptions?
I see nothing in what you quoted which imputes to PrimeNet anything
at all. I see a plain statement of fact. Do you dispute the fact
I state?
Since I make no statement about PrimeNet, I see no reason to try
to defend any such statement.
>> Using RAID is not a substitute for backups.
>
> No one said it was. Did you assume that someone thought that?
No, I did not assume that. I stated a fact. Do you dispute that
fact?
>> One
>> needs to evaluate just how disastrous an event is being protected
>> against, and then plan accordingly.
>
> Have you reviewed the PrimeNet plan with any PrimeNet administrator?
No. I fail see the relevance of the question. I stated a fact.
Do you dispute the fact? What part of it do you dispute?
[...]
>> I would try to enlist the
>> aid of some who may be more knowledgeable in such planning
>> and review and test design.
>
> When did you consult with PrimeNet administrators?
Under what circumstances, other than perhaps irony or boast, can a
statement about oneself be considered a criticism of another? Are
you suggesting that I was either ironic or boastful? I intended
neither.
Are you suggesting that I consult with PrimeNet admins in order
to get advice on how to plan my own backups?
Your response to this particular statement is, pardon me, incoherent
to me. It doesn't seem to address the statement I made.
>> I'm sure there are some in the
>> project who would be willing to help on that score.
>
> ... and have you sought their help?
Why do I need help? I've demonstrated the ability to restore my
home system onto new hardware using nothing more than backups
on hand, by so doing, in less than one day, using hardware
purchased solely for such kinds of tests. I deem that adequate
for my needs.
>> One needs to consider what data to back up, what media to
>> use, how often to back up, and carefully plan off site
>> storage and access, based on how long one is willing to be
>> "down" and how much data one is willing to lose
>> in an event.
>
> What does the PrimeNet plan have to say about those factors,
> according to your knowledge of that plan?
I have no knowledge of such a plan, or even of its existence.
I do have evidence that such a plan might not exist. I also
have evidence that the plan which was actually put into action
was deemed unsatisfactory to some participants in GIMPS.
>> One needs to plan recovery procedures with these in mind,
>> as well.
>>
>> Sometimes, staged recovery is beneficial, providing some
>> measure of recovery immediately, with perhaps some data
>> loss, which can later be more fully recovered and merged
>> with more data at a later time, perhaps days later. There
>> might be some person(s) willing to "mirror" the site,
>> providing instant recovery of service, and easing the
>> burden of the one maintaing backups of the primary copy.
>> This could perhaps result in practial impossibility of
>> complete data loss, due to geograhic redundancy.
>
> Have you discussed that with any PrimeNet administrator?
Since this is THE GIMPS forum, yes, I have. I stated to them
in the message you quote. Unless, of course, this is not
THE GIMPS forum, and I have made an inaccurate assumption
about what this forum is. If this is not, in fact, THE GIMPS
forum, then I suggest that its name be changed forthwith, as
it is misleading.
>> If there exists a collection of undamaged backups available,
>> then I don't understand why they are not being used.
>
> How did you determine that such backups were not being used, so that
> the question of "why not" is even applicable?
The v4 server is not running, hence backups are not being used
in the manner understood from context. That is a simple matter of
reason, the straightforward application of intellect, using logic.
Positive:
If backups are used in a manner which permits the v4 server
to run, then it is running.
Logical Contrapositive:
If the v4 server is not running, then backups are not being used in
a manner which permits the v4 server to run.
If you accept the truth of the positive, then you must also
accept the truth of the contrapositive, if you accept logic.
>> If there is no backup, then I strongly encourage the persons
>> responsible to educate themselves in what constitutes an adequate
>> backup regimen for their needs, and institute same instanter. In
>> either case, I strongly urge the responsible persons to give the
>> project participants the expected responses explaining why the disc
>> failure precipitated an emergency, and what steps are being taken
>> to prevent that from happening in future.
>
> I hope you will forward to them all the data you have that has
> justified your statements/assertions/questions in this posting. Can
> you share a bit of it with us on this mailing list?
There is a difference between
"I assert that there is no backup, so I strongly..."
and
"If there is no backup, then I strongly..."
Can you see that?
Can you also comprehend that this mail list is called
THE GIMP List
and that anything placed here is intended for information for
those who use, and administer the GIMP? Unless, of course, it
is mis-named.
> Richard Woods,
> who is very curious to see your factual information as queried above.
I think that you are not responding reasonably, but rather
emotionally, to a perceived attack which does not, in fact,
exist.
My statements are qualified, indicating uncertainty, inference,
and supposition. The few facts I state, I believe, are without
question, and indisputable, with a few exceptions, noted above.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
_______________________________________________
Prime mailing list
[email protected]
http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
