I was looking for a simple external HDD enclosure and I couldn't
remember, off the top of my head, if my standard desktop hard drive was
the 2.5" or 3.5" size. So I pulled out the ruler, and measured the
drive. It is roughly 5.5" x 4" x 1". It would seem to me that the 3.5"
size is what I am loo
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 09:54 -0700, Kenneth Burgener wrote:
> I was looking for a simple external HDD enclosure and I couldn't
> remember, off the top of my head, if my standard desktop hard drive was
> the 2.5" or 3.5" size. So I pulled out the ruler, and measured the
> drive. It is roughly 5.5"
On 2/6/07, Kenneth Burgener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was looking for a simple external HDD enclosure and I couldn't
remember, off the top of my head, if my standard desktop hard drive was
the 2.5" or 3.5" size. So I pulled out the ruler, and measured the
drive. It is roughly 5.5" x 4" x 1".
Oh, great. Next thing you know, there's going to be another class
action lawsuit just like there was with the monitors. All the geeks
already knew that a 17-inch monitor didn't refer to the viewable area,
but somebody had to go and raise a stink. Next think you know, hard
drives will be sold as "3
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 10:00 -0700, Stuart Jansen wrote:
> It sounds like you actually need a 5.5" enclosure. Desktop systems
> usually use 5.5" drive because they're faster and cheaper. Most laptops
> use 3.5" drives because even though they're slower and more expensive,
> they're smaller. Really s
On AD 2007 February 06 Tuesday 10:11:44 AM -0700, Stuart Jansen wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 10:00 -0700, Stuart Jansen wrote:
> > It sounds like you actually need a 5.5" enclosure. Desktop systems
> > usually use 5.5" drive because they're faster and cheaper. Most laptops
> > use 3.5" drives bec
My guess is that it refers to the width of the mounting screws.
Brian
Kenneth Burgener wrote:
I was looking for a simple external HDD enclosure and I couldn't
remember, off the top of my head, if my standard desktop hard drive was
the 2.5" or 3.5" size. So I pulled out the ruler, and measured
Stuart Jansen wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 09:54 -0700, Kenneth Burgener wrote:
>> I was looking for a simple external HDD enclosure and I couldn't
>> remember, off the top of my head, if my standard desktop hard drive was
>> the 2.5" or 3.5" size. So I pulled out the ruler, and measured the
>>
Brian Hawkins wrote:
> My guess is that it refers to the width of the mounting screws.
>
> Brian
Interesting idea, but...
There are 3 screw positions:
( ) ( ) ( )
BACK FRONT
>From the first to the second is about 2.5". From the second to the
third is about 1.
Kenneth Burgener wrote:
> I was looking for a simple external HDD enclosure and I couldn't
> remember, off the top of my head, if my standard desktop hard drive was
> the 2.5" or 3.5" size. So I pulled out the ruler, and measured the
> drive. It is roughly 5.5" x 4" x 1". It would seem to me tha
I mean the distance between the screws on the bottom of the drive. The
width between the screws is probably pretty close to 3.5"
Brian
Kenneth Burgener wrote:
Brian Hawkins wrote:
My guess is that it refers to the width of the mounting screws.
Brian
Interesting idea, but...
Ther
Brian Hawkins wrote:
> I mean the distance between the screws on the bottom of the drive. The
> width between the screws is probably pretty close to 3.5"
>
> Brian
Oh, you mean the bottom screws you would use to mount in the enclosure?
They are exactly the same distance apart (about 1.5") as t
No, I'm referring to the distance between the bottom screws on the left
side to the bottom screws on the right side.
| FRONT |
||
^
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Hawkins wrote:
> No, I'm referring to the distance between the bottom screws on the left
> side to the bottom screws on the right side.
>
> | FRONT |
> |___
Yikes. My bad
__
|FRONT |
|__|
^ ^
There is that better?
Brian
Doran Barton wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Hawkins wrote:
No, I'm referring to the distan
OK I give up. I'll ban myself from doing ascii art ever again.
Brian
Brian Hawkins wrote:
Yikes. My bad
__
|FRONT |
|__|
^ ^
There is that better?
Brian
Doran Barton wrote:
-BEGI
On 2/6/07, Brian Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the width of the drive is 4" and each screw is inset .25" from the
side that would make them 3.5" apart.
Sorry, they're inset about 2.5mm (0.098").
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/op
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 11:10 -0700, Doran Barton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Brian Hawkins wrote:
> > No, I'm referring to the distance between the bottom screws on the left
> > side to the bottom screws on the right side.
> >
> > |
On 2/6/07, Michael L Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyway, this thread is pretty silly. All we need to really know is that
the 3.5" drives are standard desktop drives and 2.5" are laptop drives,
actual dimensions and platter diameters notwithstanding.
I'm told, though I have no historical
Hello again everyone,
While designing my new MUD server I ran into a design problem that I'm
hoping someone here has had experience with.
Specifically, I currently keep track of clients in a hashmap, with the
hash being comprised of their IP address and port.
This works very well until multiple
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 12:42, Steve wrote:
> Hello again everyone,
> While designing my new MUD server I ran into a design problem that I'm
> hoping someone here has had experience with.
>
> Specifically, I currently keep track of clients in a hashmap, with the
> hash being comprised of their
On 2/6/07, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Specifically, I currently keep track of clients in a hashmap, with the
hash being comprised of their IP address and port.
When you say, "their IP and port", you're meaning source IP address
and source port (not the destination port) right? Using a so
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello again everyone,
> While designing my new MUD server I ran into a design problem that I'm
> hoping someone here has had experience with.
>
> Specifically, I currently keep track of clients in a hashmap, with the
> hash being comprised of their IP address an
Well the reason for using UDP is to see if I could do it using UDP.
Since UDP uses individual datagrams for communications in much the
same way as the mail system works, it makes a whole lot more sense to
me, to use UDP because in my design, my players don't technically need
to have a "connection"
On 2/4/07, Levi Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Solution: Use TCP. Keeping track of connections is what it was
designed for, and fortunately pretty much all network hardware is
designed to work with TCP connections, so you don't have to hack your
way around them.
What Steve wants to do can
What about TCP limitations such as maximum connection counts etc.
How would I go about handling that or getting around it?
On 2/6/07, Bryan Sant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/4/07, Levi Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Solution: Use TCP. Keeping track of connections is what it was
> desig
On 2/6/07, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about TCP limitations such as maximum connection counts etc.
How would I go about handling that or getting around it?
You can't. You can only handle 2^16 - n TCP connections at the same
time. If you're planning on having more than ~6 concur
"Bryan Sant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What Steve wants to do can be done with UDP. It's the layer 3 part of
> the TCP/IP stack that handles source/destination address:port
> information. UDP is built on IP (and TCP is built on UDP), so Steve
> can keep a unique list of users based on a sour
Joseph Hall wrote:
> Oh, great. Next thing you know, there's going to be another class
> action lawsuit just like there was with the monitors. All the geeks
> already knew that a 17-inch monitor didn't refer to the viewable area,
> but somebody had to go and raise a stink. Next think you know, har
Steve wrote:
Has anyone run up against trying to handle multiple UDP clients
through a NAT? And if so, what solutions did you come up with?
I've read most of the responses so far, so maybe this has been
mentioned. Just a long shot really, but have you read about how Skype
and other protocols
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Bryan Sant wrote:
> You can't. You can only handle 2^16 - n TCP connections at the same
> time.
Where does this limitation come from? One might be tempted to relate the
maximum number of TCP connections to the 16-bit size of a TCP port number,
but that doesn't work because
I'll be presenting on SQLAlchemy at the utah python user group on the
9th at 7:30 in American Fork.
SQLAlchemy is the object-relational mapper recently adopted by GNU
Mailman among other more Python-specific projects such as TurboGears.
Unlike with simpler rowset mappers, it's pretty difficult to
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> I'll be presenting on SQLAlchemy at the utah python user group on the
> 9th at 7:30 in American Fork.
utahphython.org says the meeting is on the 8th at 7:00pm. On which date
and time should I rely?
Chris
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenod
Bryan Sant wrote:
UDP is built on IP (and TCP is built on UDP)
TCP and UDP are both built on IP. TCP is not built on UDP.
TCP and UDP are peer protocols.
I apologize if it was just a typo, but wanted to clarify.
--
Erik R. Jensen
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscr
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:42:30 -0700 (MST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Jonathan Ellis wrote:> > I'll be presenting on SQLAlchemy
> at the utah python user group on the
> > 9th at 7:30 in American Fork.
>
> utahphython.org says the meeting is on the 8th at 7:00pm. On which date
>
35 matches
Mail list logo
