Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- From: Kevin Snodgrass <kdsnodgrass@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:00:20 -0500
lbrtchx@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Kevin Snodgrass:
Bad for the bottom line and all.
I would disagree, but I see it is just my opinion. Among many other
points, why is it you pay them a dollar amount they can do whatever
they want with and you are not supposed to do whatever you want with a
freaking hard drive? Why is it that people have class action suits
Wow, did you even read what I posted? Since Google (in this example) buys so many gazillion hard drives I have speculated that they have contracts with HDD manufacturers to get better pricing, if Google promises to not publish data about HDD performance, reliability, speed, whatever that includes Make/Model. If Google wanted to publish that info, they most certainly could if they didn't sign a contract preventing such. And paying retail for the drives.
against tabaco companies and health care providers, but they leave
their data at the expense of "confidentiality agreements" and
"contracts"
It's call the law. Maybe you should try reading up on it.
If you sign a contract you are bound by the terms of the contract. Don't like the terms? Negotiate a better deal or take your business elsewhere.
and here I am not talking about the "laws" but about what I think is
right or not.
OIC. When you are read to talk reality and not fantasy get back to me.
Also when you say "bad for the bottom line and all" I think you are
grossly overconfident about the "all" part. We, (most) people can be
so easily manipulated!!!
Wow, where the hell did that come from? Did I say anything about manipulating you? The phrase "bad for the bottom line and all" is quite simple, it is in reference to the MBAs and CxOs tunnel vision on the 10-Q for the next quarter.
Bill Todd wrote:
Unless you can come up with convincing support for your drivel about
varying amounts of energy required to spin a cylinder depending upon the
static orientation of its axis of rotation with respect to the gravity
field, I suspect most people with any understanding whatsoever of the
subject will conclude that I *am* right.
Don't chase this one away. I'm really interested in the new torque
definition and formula.
~
Kevin, give me some time to get back to you on that one. I thought
Bill was just giving me sh!t. I was amazed that he was questioning
that about gravity/the difference in the torque of a spinning cYlinder
depending on the axis. From a mechanical point of view there
definitely is a difference and to me it is like second nature. Now, I
I'll be here, waiting.
Oh, I did just peruse 2 of my college texts (University Physics, 6th Ed. Sears, Zemansky, Young; Mechanics 3rd Ed, Symon) and they both give tourque as I remembered it; the cross product of the Force vector with the Radial vector. No mention of the gravity vector.
am talking from a mechanical point of view and this is just an
illustration and NOT even a representative case but just try to spin a
bikes wheel horizontally and vertically and you will notice the
difference
No bicycles here. I've got 3 power drills, a Dremel tool and an angle grinder (remodeling a bedroom here) handy, would they do?
gaging/measuring the amount of power a drive consumes in both
positions will ultimately say the truth
Got a Kill-O-Watt and a couple volt meters. Maybe I'll try that.
when I talked about drives' cache I didn't talk properly. yeah, of
course drives cache is way to little for me to consider it a big
factor in the drive's use, but the amount of RAM these applications
have and the RAM that databases use internally and the usage patters
of these apps could make a huge difference
Yes, that cache would all make a huge difference.
Two pieces of data I would have liked to have seen from the Google study, or any other similar study, is gross blocks written and gross blocks read. I've seen that data for some drives, I definately remember some SCSI drives having it, but not sure if that is available via SMART or not...
Tried smartctl -a /dev/hdc and didn't find it.
~.
lbrtchx
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- From: lbrtchx
- Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- References:
- Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- From: Faeandar
- Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- From: Anton Ertl
- Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- From: lbrtchx
- Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- From: Kevin Snodgrass
- Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- From: lbrtchx
- Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- From: Bill Todd
- Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- From: lbrtchx
- Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- From: Bill Todd
- Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- From: Kevin Snodgrass
- Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- From: lbrtchx
- Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- Prev by Date: Re: SAA7134 alsa module
- Next by Date: can't to share the printer from XP to Vista
- Previous by thread: [OT]Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- Next by thread: Re: building on your own a large data storage ...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|