Any advice on Solaris laptops?
Since Solaris 10 is now provided under an Open Source license, I thought it might be appropriate to ask if anyone has any recommendations for running X86 Solaris 10 on a laptop. -Alex P.S. I'm not planning on doing this myself but have a colleague who is interested. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Any advice on Solaris laptops?
On 6/21/07, Alex Hewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since Solaris 10 is now provided under an Open Source license, I thought it might be appropriate to ask if anyone has any recommendations for running X86 Solaris 10 on a laptop. -Alex I've seen people using the Ferrari (by Acer?) with it. AMD CPU in a laptop. I think some of the developers at Sun have them. Sun's Big Admin site has an HCL (hardware compatibility list). The OpenSolaris sites would be a good place to look as well. Solaris 10 is much more compatible then earlier versions. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Any advice on Solaris laptops?
On 6/21/07, Alex Hewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since Solaris 10 is now provided under an Open Source license, I thought > it might be appropriate to ask if anyone has any recommendations for > running X86 Solaris 10 on a laptop. > > -Alex > > P.S. I'm not planning on doing this myself but have a colleague who is > interested. Without going on my typical rant about Solaris/x86, here's Sun's HCL for Solaris 10 on laptops, http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/data/sol/systems/views/all_laptops_all_results.page1.html -Shawn ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Shawn K. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Without going on my typical rant about Solaris/x86 ... Okay, I'm curious, and this list has been starved for *nix-related discussion lately. What's your typical rant? :-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/21/07, Shawn K. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Without going on my typical rant about Solaris/x86 ... > Okay, I'm curious, and this list has been starved for *nix-related > discussion lately. What's your typical rant? :-) An easy one to target is the fact that every few years, Sun decides to phase out Solaris x86, then rekindle it once again. Additionally, one of the 'features' is Linux binary compatibility, so Solaris x86 can use Linux drivers, as it's own support of x86 hardware is limited. So in the end, you have questionable backing of the product in general, but to make up for lack of support, it can use Linux drivers, and even run Linux apps. So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: > So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) ZFS? :) -- Cole Tuininga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.code-energy.com/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/21/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/21/07, Shawn K. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Without going on my typical rant about Solaris/x86 ... > Okay, I'm curious, and this list has been starved for *nix-related > discussion lately. What's your typical rant? :-) An easy one to target is the fact that every few years, Sun decides to phase out Solaris x86, then rekindle it once again. They tried to phase out Solaris 9. Solaris 10 was actively developed on AMD chips. Solaris 11 is being actively developed on AMD and Intel. Sun now sells servers based on AMD (and Intel recently). Solaris x86 isn't going to go away. I could see the Sparcs going away at the low end. Additionally, one of the 'features' is Linux binary compatibility, so Solaris x86 can use Linux drivers, as it's own support of x86 hardware is limited. I'm not sure the binary compatibility helps with drivers. I know they're working on Zones that will allow linux to run inside (BrandZ). So in the end, you have questionable backing of the product in general, but to make up for lack of support, it can use Linux drivers, I don't think this is true nowadays. and even run Linux apps. So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) ZFS! Dtrace. Zones (though Linux has solutions here too). A stable API with backward compatibility (Solaris 2.6 Sparc apps will run on Solaris 10. Will Redhat 6.0 apps run on RHEL 5.0?). Stability and scaling under load. Multiple SMP (I think x86 goes to 32 CPUs. Sparc goes to hundreds or thousands) As a desktop, I think Linux has it all over Solaris though not as much as in the past. As a server, I can see places where Solaris has advantages. And Linux has many advantages too. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 06/21/2007 10:02 AM, Cole Tuininga wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: > >> So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) >> > > ZFS? :) > http://zfs-on-fuse.blogspot.com/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
Thomas Charron wrote: > So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) ZFS! http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.linux.gnhlug/9813 -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Cole Tuininga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: > > So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) > ZFS? :) ZFS is nice, yes. But does it offer a large enough benefit to justify a shift to an entirely different operating system? Someone give me a reason BESIDES ZFS, which is relatively new, one would want to run Solaris x86 over Linux or BSD? -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Tom Buskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A stable API with backward compatibility
A better point to make is the stable ABI. The Linux API does pretty
well with getting old code to compile under newer stuff. But getting
old binaries working is often less easy.
There's a definite trade-off in terms of pace of improvement vs
stability of interface over time. One of the reasons Linux improves
and adapts so quickly is that the community is not afraid to throw out
the old stuff. That does tend to increase the programming and
sysadmin effort, though. And it's a nightmare for closed-source
providers (too bad for them).
> (Solaris 2.6 Sparc apps will run on Solaris 10.
To those who are not aware, "Solaris 2.6" would be "Solaris 6" under
the current nomenclature.
> Will Redhat 6.0 apps run on RHEL 5.0?
When was Solaris (2.)6 released?
I suspect a better comparison would be RHEL 2.1 on RHEL 5.0. Of
course, I don't know the answer there, either. :-) Maybe one of the
Red Hat'ers on the list can respond...
> Multiple SMP (I think x86 goes to 32 CPUs. Sparc goes to hundreds or
> thousands)
Have they ever built one? If not, that's just vaporware. The E15K
only went to, what, 64 processors? Still way more than x86, but let's
be real, too.
To go sideways: The wave of the future is distributing computing
("clusters") anyway, so it's mostly academic.
> As a server, I can see places where Solaris has advantages. And
> Linux has many advantages too.
What?!? One size doesn't fit all??? ;-)
-- Ben
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/21/07, Cole Tuininga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: > > So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) > ZFS? :) ZFS is nice, yes. But does it offer a large enough benefit to justify a shift to an entirely different operating system? For a file server, I think so. ZFS will detect errors due to a bad bad cable, controller, controller/disk firmware. No other filesystem will. Someone give me a reason BESIDES ZFS, which is relatively new, one would want to run Solaris x86 over Linux or BSD? Dtrace. You can run your linux binary or java application under Solaris for debugging and optimizing. Both of these are coming in MacOSX 10.5 and in FreeBSD. Linux is working on Systemtap and I've seen BTFS. Sun's CDDL isn't compatible with the GPL in the kernel so clones are being developed. If the clones are good enough, there shouldn't be a reason to switch. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Tom Buskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > An easy one to target is the fact that every few years, Sun decides > > to phase out Solaris x86, then rekindle it once again. > They tried to phase out Solaris 9. Solaris 10 was actively developed on AMD > chips. Solaris 11 is being actively developed on AMD and Intel. Sun now > sells servers based on AMD (and Intel recently). But my point is, historically over the last 10 years, Solaris x86 development cycle has ebbed and flowed back and forth. I understand that current versions are being actively developed, but if Sun where to, say, release a 'new ubah chip', I would not be suprised to see the x86 version fall to the side once again. > Solaris x86 isn't going to go away. I could see the Sparcs going away at > the low end. It already went away at least 2 times. > > Additionally, one of the 'features' is Linux binary compatibility, > > so Solaris x86 can use Linux drivers, as it's own support of x86 > > hardware is limited. > I'm not sure the binary compatibility helps with drivers. I know they're > working on Zones that will allow linux to run inside (BrandZ). I know, I appologized to Ben offlist about confusing the two, but Solaris x86 tends to rely on both binary AND Kernel module compatibility. > > So in the end, you have questionable backing of the product in > > general, but to make up for lack of support, it can use Linux drivers, > I don't think this is true nowadays. True. But what about 5 years from now? > > and even run Linux apps. So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) > ZFS! Dtrace. Zones (though Linux has solutions here too). A stable API > with backward compatibility (Solaris 2.6 Sparc apps will run on Solaris 10. > Will Redhat 6.0 apps run on RHEL 5.0?). Stability and scaling under load. > Multiple SMP (I think x86 goes to 32 CPUs. Sparc goes to hundreds or > thousands) ... That's based on Distro, *NOT* on Linux in general. As far as x86 comparisons, I was not making comparisons of Solaris vs Linux, I was comparisong Solaris *x86*. > As a desktop, I think Linux has it all over Solaris though not as much as in > the past. As a server, I can see places where Solaris has advantages. And > Linux has many advantages too. Solaris isn't a server. A physical MACHINE is a server. :-) -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/21/07, Tom Buskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A stable API with backward compatibility
A better point to make is the stable ABI. The Linux API does pretty
well with getting old code to compile under newer stuff. But getting
old binaries working is often less easy.
There's a definite trade-off in terms of pace of improvement vs
stability of interface over time. One of the reasons Linux improves
and adapts so quickly is that the community is not afraid to throw out
the old stuff. That does tend to increase the programming and
sysadmin effort, though. And it's a nightmare for closed-source
providers (too bad for them).
> (Solaris 2.6 Sparc apps will run on Solaris 10.
To those who are not aware, "Solaris 2.6" would be "Solaris 6" under
the current nomenclature.
Actually, Solaris 2.6 is 2.6. Solaris 2.7 became just Solaris 7. And
there's the retro naming of SunOS 4.x to Solaris 1.x.
Will Redhat 6.0 apps run on RHEL 5.0?
When was Solaris (2.)6 released?
1998ish? Certainly before 2000. I switched from RH to Mandrake 6.1 around
this time.
I suspect a better comparison would be RHEL 2.1 on RHEL 5.0. Of
course, I don't know the answer there, either. :-) Maybe one of the
Red Hat'ers on the list can respond...
Heck, RedHat 6.0 to RedHat 9.
Multiple SMP (I think x86 goes to 32 CPUs. Sparc goes to hundreds or
> thousands)
Have they ever built one? If not, that's just vaporware. The E15K
only went to, what, 64 processors? Still way more than x86, but let's
be real, too.
You're right. Only 106 CPUs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Fire_15K
To go sideways: The wave of the future is distributing computing
("clusters") anyway, so it's mostly academic.
SMP has an advantage with I/O bandwidth and latency. And Intel has been
demonstrating an 80 core CPU. I think SMP will continue to be important for
general computing and scientific computer where clustering doesn't fit.
As a server, I can see places where Solaris has advantages. And
> Linux has many advantages too.
What?!? One size doesn't fit all??? ;-)
Heck, you can see where Windows might have advantages.
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 10:14 -0400, Mark Komarinski wrote: > On 06/21/2007 10:02 AM, Cole Tuininga wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: > > > >> So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) > > ZFS? :) > http://zfs-on-fuse.blogspot.com/ Right - but because FUSE lives in userland, my understanding is that the performance is somewhere around 50% of what you'd see on Solaris. On top of which (at least, from my meager understanding of it) you're still going to have to go through the Linux's VFS layer which is going to reduce the usefulness of ZFS significantly wrt data integrity. -- Cole Tuininga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.code-energy.com/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Any advice on Solaris laptops?
Hello Shawn, As someone who really likes Sun and has used Solaris for ever I don't see Sun as a choice in that space. Arguably Sun has had amazing innovations and contributions to the FOSS community and those are definitively appreciated. Unfortunately they don't really have any salient Desktop focused offering. That's not a criticism but more of a statement of reality. That being said, in the server space I still love Solaris and think its a great choice. Personally given the other choices of Ubuntu, Debian, Centos, Fedora on the desktop space they are eons ahead. If you want BSD you should check out the efforts of PC-BSD, Desktop BSD and even FreeBSD are ahead of Solaris on the desktop in to many ways to list. Personally I would go with a Distro that has a focus on Desktop functions rather than spend all your time re engineering the wheel that already exists. I.e. Ubuntu/Kubuntu IMHO. Any of the aforementioned is great so make your own choice... Thanks, Joe Message: 1 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:15:19 -0400 From: "Shawn K. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Any advice on Solaris laptops? To: "Alex Hewitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: GNHLUG Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 6/21/07, Alex Hewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since Solaris 10 is now provided under an Open Source license, I thought > it might be appropriate to ask if anyone has any recommendations for > running X86 Solaris 10 on a laptop. > > -Alex > > P.S. I'm not planning on doing this myself but have a colleague who is > interested. Without going on my typical rant about Solaris/x86, here's Sun's HCL for Solaris 10 on laptops, http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/data/sol/systems/views/all_laptops_all_results.page1.html -Shawn ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
Cole Tuininga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 10:14 -0400, Mark Komarinski wrote: >> On 06/21/2007 10:02 AM, Cole Tuininga wrote: >> > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:52 -0400, Thomas Charron wrote: >> > >> >> So one has to ask. What's the point? :-) >> > ZFS? :) >> http://zfs-on-fuse.blogspot.com/ > > Right - but because FUSE lives in userland, my understanding is that the > performance is somewhere around 50% of what you'd see on Solaris. On > top of which (at least, from my meager understanding of it) you're still > going to have to go through the Linux's VFS layer which is going to > reduce the usefulness of ZFS significantly wrt data integrity. Actually, the FUSE overhead is extremely low. I've actually measured it using tools like bonnie++ using a home-made FUSE filesystem that effectively mirrors the underlying filesystem (i.e., just a passthrough), and the overhead was only like 5% compared to direct EXT2/3 access. -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH [EMAIL PROTECTED]PGP key available ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Tom Buskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> To those who are not aware, "Solaris 2.6" would be "Solaris 6" under >> the current nomenclature. > > Actually, Solaris 2.6 is 2.6. Solaris 2.7 became just Solaris 7. Lame response. Obviously, if 2.7 = 7, 2.8 = 8, 2.9 = 9, and 2.10 = 10, then 2.6 = 6. Point being that 2.6 to 10 is four major releases, not eight. > And there's the retro naming of SunOS 4.x to Solaris 1.x. Right. 1.x = classic SunOS and 2.x = present-day Solaris. Which is why they dropped the 2. prefix in the first place; they realized it was a lame idea. Solaris was stuck on 2.x forever. So why bother with the 2.x? (Same problem Linux kernel has, incidentally.) >> I suspect a better comparison would be RHEL 2.1 on RHEL 5.0. > > Heck, RedHat 6.0 to RedHat 9. Not apples to apples. RHL was not advertised as a long lifecycle OS. RHEL is. I still suspect Solaris does a lot better in this area (for the appropriate definitions of "better"), I'm just curious how well (or poorly) RHEL does. Or Debian Stable, for that matter. > Heck, you can see where Windows might have advantages. I kinda like the Pinball game that comes with Win XP... ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Right - but because FUSE lives in userland, my understanding is that the >> performance is somewhere around 50% of what you'd see on Solaris. > > Actually, the FUSE overhead is extremely low. Performance almost always depends on implementation details. So comparing a pass-through filesystem in FUSE to ZFS in FUSE probably isn't apples to apples. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
ZFS/FUSE
On 6/21/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/21/07, Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Right - but because FUSE lives in userland, my understanding is that the > >> performance is somewhere around 50% of what you'd see on Solaris. > > > > Actually, the FUSE overhead is extremely low. > > Performance almost always depends on implementation details. So > comparing a pass-through filesystem in FUSE to ZFS in FUSE probably > isn't apples to apples. There was an article about ZFS in FUSE which addressed the performance concerns on Monday on LinuxWorld http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/061807-zfs-on-linux.html -Shawn ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On Jun 21, 2007, at 10:29, Thomas Charron wrote: > ZFS is nice, yes. But does it offer a large enough benefit to > justify a shift to an entirely different operating system? I think the answer is 'yes', if your needs are a match for ZFS. Now, without sparking a 60-message thread of "what is an OS?" I'll just say the next file server I build is going to be based on Nexenta: http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki/Nexenta_OS which is for all intents and purposes Ubuntu on the OpenSolaris kernel. So you don't have to learn anything new outside of the kernel space. I haven't been a Solaris sysadmin since 2.6, so I'm happier just having my machine look mostly like Linux. It will be interesting to see what Debian does when OpenSolaris goes GPL3 and Linux doesn't. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Stupid server semantic argument (was: Non Linux but network tech question)
On Jun 19, 2007, at 13:05, Thomas Charron wrote: > No, it isn't. It isn't a client either. It's a 'collaborative' > application, where there isn't a client or a server, just peers which > send data to each other. Are we talking about perception or implementation? At the implementation level, Bittorrent is many instances of one type of client (that gets the data streams) and typically a single instance of the client that chats with the tracker, plus several instances of a server which serve out chunks of data to other clients. This collection of clients and servers is perceived as a P2P app, but nobody needed to add any new syscalls to linux to make this work. Perception doesn't have any effect on the Comcast NOC, but it has an effect on the ToS the company can get away with. My point about writing P2P apps which use ports 80 and 25 was to effect that impact of perception onto the ToS. It's easier to get lost in the noise if everybody else is doing it. I recognize that everybody's correct about the ToS and their intent, however when a monopoly provider of what some might consider an essential service has draconian policies and the regulators are captured, sometimes a bit of civil disobedience is the right thing to do. Anybody running non-ogg media codecs on linux recognizes this. We could argue extensively on another thread which is the right model for a well-functioning society and if societal power is on loan from the people or derived by the wealth. On Jun 19, 2007, at 15:59, Ben Scott wrote: > The fact that BitTorrent > enables them to get said stuff via distributed, peer-to-peer sharing > network is an accident; they just want a download. And that's > generally the market Comcast is going after. It may be unbeknownst to them, but it's no accident - it's the reason they the content is there in the first place. Regardless of that, Bittorrent has a much larger effect on the Comcast NOC than somebody hosting pictures of their kids ever would. I'm not talking about tech support, on purpose. Supposedly uPnP is a way to ameliorate that kind of support work but I haven't checked it out myself yet. There's also some local variability - in much the same way that community access television is an exchange for local monopoly grants, I've spoken with many local officials who believe their franchise agreements do not preclude citizens from sponsoring community-benefit projects on the network. It could be that the ToS and the Franchise Agreements are in conflict, but one needs to consult their own local franchise agreement for details as they're independently negotiated. On Jun 20, 2007, at 12:50, Ben Scott wrote: > It depends on the nature of the usage. A lot of torrent users are > leaches, mainly downloading. Most of the newer choking algorithms specifically treat these users very badly, essentially so that they have to enable the proper port forwarding on their NAT to get any kind of performance they'd find acceptable (except where NAT-busting techniques are sufficient to make this unnecessary). -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Stupid server semantic argument (was: Non Linux but network tech question)
On 6/21/07, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 19, 2007, at 13:05, Thomas Charron wrote: > > No, it isn't. It isn't a client either. It's a 'collaborative' > > application, where there isn't a client or a server, just peers which > > send data to each other. > Are we talking about perception or implementation? At the > implementation level, Bittorrent is many instances of one type of > client (that gets the data streams) and typically a single instance > of the client that chats with the tracker, plus several instances of > a server which serve out chunks of data to other clients. This > collection of clients and servers is perceived as a P2P app, but > nobody needed to add any new syscalls to linux to make this work. I hope no one is offended by this, but.. That's like saying a bisexual person is both strait *AND* gay at the same time. I feel a squigee comment coming... -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant
"Tom Buskey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> When was Solaris (2.)6 released? > > 1998ish? Certainly before 2000. I think it was late 98, early 99. I was at Bay Networks and left there in March of 2000, which was the last time I really admin'ed a Solaris shop, and we had a couple of 2.6 systems floating around. I'm sure if someone cares enough, google will tell us :) -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant
On 6/21/07, Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Tom Buskey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> When was Solaris (2.)6 released? > > > > 1998ish? Certainly before 2000. > > I think it was late 98, early 99. I was at Bay Networks and left > there in March of 2000, which was the last time I really admin'ed a > Solaris shop, and we had a couple of 2.6 systems floating around. > > I'm sure if someone cares enough, google will tell us :) Poking around in Sun's docsappears 8/1997 was initial release with the last updated with patches release being 5/1998 -Shawn ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Application-accessible nvram/cache for Linux?
Hi all, Someone just asked me if I had ever heard of an Intel-based system with application-accessible non-volatile RAM. The idea is that OS could move things out of swap and/or system memory into nvram (battery-backed is okay) in the case of a power failure similar to the way RAID controllers do. We have a RAID system with battery-backed cache which is about 1GB. I'm told that 1GB of nvram would be fine for whatever they have in mind. I've never heard of anything like this, has anyone here? Thanks. -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Application-accessible nvram/cache for Linux?
Flash hard drives are out there, that's close... I saw SRAM-based hard drives once upon a time, but that was so long ago I don't know if they still exist. These are small but purchaseable: http://magicram.com/industrial_sram.htm There are solid-state hard disks, SATA interface or IDE: http://www.memorydepot.com/details.asp?id=DOM1GSATA http://www.adtron.com/products/A25fb-SerialATAFlashDisk.html Fibre-channel: http://www.memtech.com/memtech_3.5-inch-ide-scsi-solid-state-flash-drives-products.html#memtech-zues-iops-3.5-inch-fibre-channel-solid-state-drive ... and this is interesting. http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480&p=2 --DTVZ On 6/21/07, Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all, Someone just asked me if I had ever heard of an Intel-based system with application-accessible non-volatile RAM. The idea is that OS could move things out of swap and/or system memory into nvram (battery-backed is okay) in the case of a power failure similar to the way RAID controllers do. We have a RAID system with battery-backed cache which is about 1GB. I'm told that 1GB of nvram would be fine for whatever they have in mind. I've never heard of anything like this, has anyone here? Thanks. -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:42:47 -0400 > From: "Thomas Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Disposition: inline > Cc: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > > As a desktop, I think Linux has it all over Solaris though not as much as in > > the past. As a server, I can see places where Solaris has advantages. And > > Linux has many advantages too. > > Solaris isn't a server. A physical MACHINE is a server. :-) Actually, a "server" is a software application which provides services to other applications (called clients). Calling a box a "server" is like calling the checkout lane a cashier. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Application-accessible nvram/cache for Linux?
> From: Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:53:38 -0400 > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Hi all, > > Someone just asked me if I had ever heard of an Intel-based system > with application-accessible non-volatile RAM. The idea is that OS > could move things out of swap and/or system memory into nvram > (battery-backed is okay) in the case of a power failure similar to the > way RAID controllers do. Linux has a /dev/nvram, and some kernel config opts related to it. I don't know exactly what they're for and really haven't played with them. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
On 6/21/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:42:47 -0400 > > From: "Thomas Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Disposition: inline > > Cc: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > > > As a desktop, I think Linux has it all over Solaris though not as much as > > > in > > > the past. As a server, I can see places where Solaris has advantages. > > > And > > > Linux has many advantages too. > > Solaris isn't a server. A physical MACHINE is a server. :-) > Actually, a "server" is a software application which provides services > to other applications (called clients). Calling a box a "server" is > like calling the checkout lane a cashier. It depends on your point of view. From a software perspective, indeed, you are correct. From a 'it's sitting on server 5, in /foo', it's a machine. I truly cannot believe, after all of the off-topic conversations we've had, how anal retentive the list has become recently. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Application-accessible nvram/cache for Linux?
"Drew Van Zandt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Flash hard drives are out there, that's close... Too slow I'm told. > I saw SRAM-based hard drives once upon a time, but that was so long > ago I don't know if they still exist. I don't think they want a drive, they want something like a battery-backed cache but accessible from user space. > and this is interesting. > http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480&p=2 Hmmm, interesting... Thanks! -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Solaris/x86 rant (was: Any advice on Solaris laptops?)
> And there's the retro naming of SunOS 4.x to Solaris 1.x. ummm, that was way more than a "retro naming". SunOS was based on the BSD kernel and the BSD code, modified a long time under Sun. Solaris was based on System V.4, with Sun ripping it apart and basically re-writing it. SunOS was related to Solaris much the same way that Ultrix (BSD based) was related to Digital Unix (OSF/1 ripped apart and re-written by Digital). As a side note we never really released a "V1.0" of Digital's OSF/1 system. We started with V1.2, I believewe figured no one would use a V1.0 :-) md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [SAGE] a video
This was sent to the SAGE members list today. I urge you to watch it. >> Offered without comment, except that my politics >> are generally those of 1880: >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Application-accessible nvram/cache for Linux?
On June 21, 2007, Paul Lussier sent me the following: > "Drew Van Zandt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480&p=2 > > Hmmm, interesting... Thanks! I was looking at these a while back. I remember there were some negative comments about the Gigabyte i-RAM on NewEgg concerning Linux compatibility, though I'm not sure how something that acts like a SATA drive wouldn't work. Along similar lines, http://www.hyperdrive4.com/ available through http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/ though it's considerably more expensive than the i-RAM. -- Chip Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kyzoku.2bithacker.net/ GCM/IT d+(-) s+:++ a25>? C++ UB$ P+++$ L- E--- W++ N@ o K- w O M+ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t+@ R@ tv@ b++@ DI D+(-) G++ e>++ h>++ r-- y? ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
