Quoting "Paul Makepeace" :
I wonder how big the intersection of datacenters that don't have halon
AND are served by a fire dept that's using water rather than CO2 to
extinguish electrical fires is.
Google machines have per-machine UPS which works pretty well for a
number of reasons,
http://www.
Quoting "Simon Wilcox" :
I had a 5 minute power cut in SE26 two weeks ago and a cut lasting
about an hour in EC1 10 days ago.
I know from experience that some of the EC1 area has flaky power,
though i'm told it's improving (I don't work around there any more)
This is very true. I stopped
On 20 April 2010 20:02, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 05:27:31PM +0100, Simon Wilcox wrote:
>> On 20/4/10 16:52, David Cantrell wrote:
>> >Very few people live in areas with flaky power, at least in the UK.
>> I had a 5 minute power cut in SE26 two weeks ago and a cut lasting abo
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 05:27:31PM +0100, Simon Wilcox wrote:
> On 20/4/10 16:52, David Cantrell wrote:
> >Very few people live in areas with flaky power, at least in the UK.
> I had a 5 minute power cut in SE26 two weeks ago and a cut lasting about
> an hour in EC1 10 days ago.
Huh. Here in CR7
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 03:23, Peter Corlett wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2010, at 10:07, James Laver wrote:
> [...]
>> Or 'on any machine connected to a UPS that's correctly configured to shut
>> the machine down properly'?
>
> Many data centres won't allow this due to safety concerns.
[citation needed]
On 20/4/10 16:52, David Cantrell wrote:
Very few people live in areas with flaky power, at least in the UK.
I had a 5 minute power cut in SE26 two weeks ago and a cut lasting about
an hour in EC1 10 days ago.
It's not what I'd call flaky in the sense of regular issues but enough
that I'm gl
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 04:30:53PM +0100, Paul Orrock wrote:
> David Cantrell wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:07:01AM +, James Laver wrote:
> >>On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:08:10AM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> >>>Having said that, there are clearly plenty of applications where
> >>>power
David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:07:01AM +, James Laver wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:08:10AM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
Having said that, there are clearly plenty of applications where
power-failure isn't an overriding worry.
Or 'on any machine connected to a UPS tha
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:07:01AM +, James Laver wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:08:10AM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> > Having said that, there are clearly plenty of applications where
> > power-failure isn't an overriding worry.
> Or 'on any machine connected to a UPS that's correctly
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:20:41AM +0100, Bob Walker wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, David Precious wrote:
>
>>
>> (Yeah, ideally you'd be running a dual-PSU box with each PSU connected to a
>> different supply, so you should never lose both, of course.)
>
>
> which is fine as long as you paid attent
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:23:45AM +0100, Peter Corlett wrote:
>
> Fortunately, we have very reliable mains electricity in (most of) the
> UK. It's good enough that adding generators and UPSes actually reduces
> the reliability. I don't bother with a UPS at home any more.
I'm unfortunate enough t
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:23:38PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
>
> I expect it was shorthand for "Your main clause no finite verb".
I think we're missing the far more important internet meme, 'I
accidentally the verb'
--James
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 13:59, Dirk Koopman wrote:
> Peter Corlett wrote:
>>
>> On 20 Apr 2010, at 12:19, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> I replying too late to be at the front of the very long queue of people
>>> who will disagree with you entirely on this.
>>
>> Your sentence no verb.
>
On 20 Apr 2010, at 12:59, Dirk Koopman wrote:
> Peter Corlett wrote:
>> On 20 Apr 2010, at 12:19, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I replying too late to be at the front of the very long queue of people
>>> who will disagree with you entirely on this.
>> Your sentence no verb.
> Really? I can
Peter Corlett wrote:
On 20 Apr 2010, at 12:19, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
[...]
I replying too late to be at the front of the very long queue of people
who will disagree with you entirely on this.
Your sentence no verb.
Really? I can see at least three. But what do I know, being a furriner?
On 20 Apr 2010, at 12:19, Martin A. Brooks wrote:
[...]
> I replying too late to be at the front of the very long queue of people
> who will disagree with you entirely on this.
Your sentence no verb. Also, you appear to be at the head of the queue because
there's exactly one person in it.
Get ba
On Tue, April 20, 2010 11:23, Peter Corlett wrote:
> Fortunately, we have very reliable mains electricity in (most of) the UK.
> It's good enough that adding generators and UPSes actually reduces the
> reliability. I don't bother with a UPS at home any more.
I replying too late to be at the front
On 20/4/10 11:03, David Precious wrote:
On Tuesday 20 April 2010 10:36:54 Simon Wilcox wrote:
On 20/4/10 10:07, James Laver wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:08:10AM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
Having said that, there are clearly plenty of applications where
power-failure isn't an overriding
On 20 Apr 2010, at 10:07, James Laver wrote:
[...]
> Or 'on any machine connected to a UPS that's correctly configured to shut the
> machine down properly'?
Many data centres won't allow this due to safety concerns. Quite right too: if
there's a fire, the fire brigade needs everything *off* whil
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, David Precious wrote:
(Yeah, ideally you'd be running a dual-PSU box with each PSU connected to a
different supply, so you should never lose both, of course.)
which is fine as long as you paid attention when plugging stuff in and
made sure that you didnt use more power
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:08:39AM +0100, Roger Burton West wrote:
>And ideally the triple-PSU box can actually run on just one PSU.
... and that the power distribution circuit within the box which takes the DC
power from the separate PSUs doesn't fail - seen that part fail before.
As Roger says
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, James Laver wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:08:10AM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
Having said that, there are clearly plenty of applications where
power-failure isn't an overriding worry.
Or 'on any machine connected to a UPS that's correctly configured to
shut the machi
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:03:49AM +0100, David Precious wrote:
>(Yeah, ideally you'd be running a dual-PSU box with each PSU connected to a
>different supply, so you should never lose both, of course.)
And ideally the PSU failure doesn't blow a fuse further into the system.
And ideally the tri
On Tuesday 20 April 2010 10:36:54 Simon Wilcox wrote:
> On 20/4/10 10:07, James Laver wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:08:10AM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> >> Having said that, there are clearly plenty of applications where
> >> power-failure isn't an overriding worry.
> >
> > Or 'on any mac
On 20/4/10 10:07, James Laver wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:08:10AM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
Having said that, there are clearly plenty of applications where
power-failure isn't an overriding worry.
Or 'on any machine connected to a UPS that's correctly configured to
shut the machine
On 20 April 2010 10:07, James Laver wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:08:10AM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
>> Having said that, there are clearly plenty of applications where
>> power-failure isn't an overriding worry.
>
> Or 'on any machine connected to a UPS that's correctly configured to
> sh
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:08:10AM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> Having said that, there are clearly plenty of applications where
> power-failure isn't an overriding worry.
Or 'on any machine connected to a UPS that's correctly configured to
shut the machine down properly'?
Or 'on any machine
On 19/04/10 16:00, Chris Jack wrote:
Because it's been discussed previously on this list, I thought I
might draw your attention to the newish generation of SSDs:
I'm not qualified to say
if they are reliable enough for production databases - but I would be
interested in opinions.
You might
For reference; we used some corsair drives which lasted two months on a high
load server (lots of small writes/erases). I'd also imagine that the -E
(http://www.intel.com/design/flash/nand/extreme/index.htm) variety of X25's are
better than even the never -M ones; and also quite a bit more pricy
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Chris Jack wrote:
>
> There are actually reasonably affordable
> (http://www.microdirect.co.uk/home/product/44075/Intel-X25-M-Mainstream-80GB-SATA-2-5-inch?source=googleps)
> has 80GB drives for £155 ex VAT.
>
A friend got one from Amazon.co.uk for £139 last wee
Joel Bernstein writes:
> 2010/4/19 Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker :
>> Joel Bernstein writes:
>>
>>> On 19 April 2010 16:00, Chris Jack wrote:
aka it's rated for 20Gb of writes for a minimum of 5 years
>>>
>>> You may have a transcription error in units there. Did you mean
>>> 20Gb/? If so, how
2010/4/19 Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker :
> Joel Bernstein writes:
>
>> On 19 April 2010 16:00, Chris Jack wrote:
>>> aka it's rated for 20Gb of writes for a minimum of 5 years
>>
>> You may have a transcription error in units there. Did you mean
>> 20Gb/? If so, how long?
>
> Quoting from the data sh
Joel Bernstein writes:
> On 19 April 2010 16:00, Chris Jack wrote:
>> aka it's rated for 20Gb of writes for a minimum of 5 years
>
> You may have a transcription error in units there. Did you mean
> 20Gb/? If so, how long?
Quoting from the data sheet[1]:
| 3.5.4 Minimum Useful Life
| The
On 19 April 2010 16:00, Chris Jack wrote:
> aka it's rated for 20Gb of writes for a minimum of 5 years
You may have a transcription error in units there. Did you mean
20Gb/? If so, how long?
/joel
Because it's been discussed previously on this list, I thought I might draw
your attention to the newish generation of SSDs:
http://www.intel.com/design/flash/nand/mainstream/index.htm
You can probably find the performance data you want quite easily, but the key
reliability data I was inter
35 matches
Mail list logo
