"Andrej Ricnik-Bay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/4/07, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Enterprise-level" tapes can sit in storage for 7-15 years and then
>> still be readable. Can a disk drive sit un-used for 7 years? Would
>> the motor freeze up? Will we still be able to connec
On 07/04/07 16:00, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
On 7/4/07, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Enterprise-level" tapes can sit in storage for 7-15 years and then
still be readable. Can a disk drive sit un-used for 7 years? Would
the motor freeze up? Will we still be able to connect SATA driv
On 7/4/07, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Enterprise-level" tapes can sit in storage for 7-15 years and then
still be readable. Can a disk drive sit un-used for 7 years? Would
the motor freeze up? Will we still be able to connect SATA drives
in 7 years?
Same with a tape-drive, no?
On 07/03/07 13:03, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 7/2/07, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06/18/07 08:05, Merlin Moncure wrote:
[snip]
>
> That being said, it's pretty clear to me we are in the last days of
> the disk drive.
Oh, puhleeze. Seagate, Hitachi, Fuji and WD aren't sitting around
On 7/2/07, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06/18/07 08:05, Merlin Moncure wrote:
[snip]
>
> That being said, it's pretty clear to me we are in the last days of
> the disk drive.
Oh, puhleeze. Seagate, Hitachi, Fuji and WD aren't sitting around
with their thumbs up their arses.In 3
On 06/18/07 08:05, Merlin Moncure wrote:
[snip]
That being said, it's pretty clear to me we are in the last days of
the disk drive.
Oh, puhleeze. Seagate, Hitachi, Fuji and WD aren't sitting around
with their thumbs up their arses.In 3-4 years, large companies
and spooky TLAs will be st
On 6/17/07, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Anyway... databases are always(?) IO bound. I'd try to figure out how to
> make a bigger hose (or more hoses) between the spindles and the mobo.
What I keep waiting for is the drives with flash memory b
On 06/17/07 00:19, Greg Smith wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Ron Johnson wrote:
Anyway... databases are always(?) IO bound. I'd try to figure out how
to make a bigger hose (or more hoses) between the spindles and the mobo.
What I keep waiting for is the drives with flash memory built-in to
mat
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Ron Johnson wrote:
Anyway... databases are always(?) IO bound. I'd try to figure out how to
make a bigger hose (or more hoses) between the spindles and the mobo.
What I keep waiting for is the drives with flash memory built-in to
mature. I would love to get reliable wri
On 6/17/07, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06/16/07 17:05, Alexander Staubo wrote:
> On 6/16/07, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hardware acceleration for quickly counting the number of
>> > set/unset/matching bits?
>>
>> x86 doesn't already do that?
>
> I don't think so. T
On 06/16/07 17:05, Alexander Staubo wrote:
On 6/16/07, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hardware acceleration for quickly counting the number of
> set/unset/matching bits?
x86 doesn't already do that?
I don't think so. The fastest way, I believe, is to use precomputed
lookup tables. S
On 6/16/07, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hardware acceleration for quickly counting the number of
> set/unset/matching bits?
x86 doesn't already do that?
I don't think so. The fastest way, I believe, is to use precomputed
lookup tables. Same for finding the least/most significant s
On 06/16/07 10:47, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
Hi,
I've been wondering, what O/S or hardware feature would be useful for
databases?
If Postgresql developers could get the CPU and O/S makers to do things
that would make certain things easier/faster (and in the long term) what
would they be?
By lon
Seems CPU makers currently have more transistors than they know what to
do with, so they're adding cores and doing a lot of boring stuff like
SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, etc.
SSE(n) isn't useless since it speeds up stuff like video encoding by,
say, a few times.
For databases, I'd say scatter/g
Hi,
I've been wondering, what O/S or hardware feature would be useful for
databases?
If Postgresql developers could get the CPU and O/S makers to do
things that would make certain things easier/faster (and in the long
term) what would they be?
By long term I mean it's not something that's
15 matches
Mail list logo
