Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Benjamin Franklin said once (Score 1) 391

I'll add one point to my last comment. Please attempt to have me brought up on charges; I'm not difficult to find. Given your position on these matters, I'd adore the opportunity to leverage the justice system and whatever ancillary measures are necessary to discover and publicize your identity. You speak boldly, but I doubt you possess the fortitude to see your name attached to your statements.

Comment Re:Benjamin Franklin said once (Score 5, Interesting) 391

Society has decided that your freedom to disseminate terrorist propaganda is not worth the lives of the extra hostages terrorists would take if they knew their propaganda would be successful.

Nonsense on two counts. (1) Who are you to dictate the ethical positions of those viewing this information? I find the information in question to be a remarkably effective tool for educating others about the realities of such savage acts, and to urge them directly defy those who directly sponsor such savagery. (2) Even assuming the material is considered to be in support of terrorism by officials in a particular portion of society, that their citizens have decided to permit silly and hazy laws to be enacted against distribution of such material instead devoting government resources to combating actual acts of terror, and that those citizens have decided to permit their elected officials to threaten their little corner of the planet with those laws, I don't give a damn. My portion of society isn't affected by those threats, and thus those who might consider attempting to threaten me under inapplicable jurisdictions are welcome to go fuck themselves. Apparently, you're invited to the latter party. Would you care for some lube?

Comment Re:Of Course They Do! (Score 1) 129

KSM efficacy is of course workload dependent; I specifically nodded to this factor as follows:

On a host running many similar guests, extremely large gains in memory deduplication may be seen.

I'm not experiencing issues with memory performance. Could you cite specific data you've collected in your environment? Perhaps huge pages would be helpful for your use case.

Assuming more than a handful of application instances, a container solution is nearly certain to be less prudent. Please feel free to reach out to me via email if you'd like to collaborate on potentially better approaches to the problems you're tackling.

Comment Re:Suppression (Score 0) 391

You seem to be wagering that the police in question are very good in bed, or at least better in bed than those who would prefer more widespread dissemination (not to be confused with other terms ending in "ination") of this sort of information. I question the wisdom of that bet.

Did I miss some sort of /b/ or film reference here? I've been out of the loop for a while owing to more pressing concerns.

Comment Re:Of Course They Do! (Score 1) 129

VirtualBox isn't representative of the majority of the use cases under discussion here. I work with large KVM and VMware ESX deployments every day, and every single file and database server I use in enterprise environments is virtualized. Performance is not a problem, even for heavy workloads. Latency is not an issue, either. I won't beat a dead horse in this thread, but I will offer my advice via email if you'd like a few additional ideas regarding your stated use case.

Comment Suppression (Score 4, Insightful) 391

Things happen. Sometimes very nasty things happen. Attempts at suppression of information related to nasty things will inevitably fail, and such attempts will only serve to cast those advocating for suppression in a nasty light themselves. "Authorities" might find their time better spent pursuing criminals instead of engaging in an odd attempt to force the populace to bury its head in the sand on threat of imprisonment. The information itself isn't the problem; direct harm caused against human beings is.

TLDR: Scotland Yard can go fuck itself, and I think this is a great time to make a personal project of facilitating the spread of this information as widely as possible. Thank goodness I've got a great deal of resources available to assist in that endeavor. Cheers, mates.

Comment Re:Of Course They Do! (Score 1) 129

I like how you didn't bother to directly respond to any of the points listed. Your apparent inability to properly tune a virtualization host and its guests is your problem, and not reflective of the current abilities offered by modern virtualization systems. To address your point regarding GPU losses, if you're really that concerned about such issues on server systems, you're welcome to give host passthrough a shot with one of your guests; a lot of nice work has been done in that area lately. That said, these are indeed server systems we're talking about, and for the majority of use cases the only displays involved are the odd VNC/RDP session. What was your point, again?

Comment Re:Of Course They Do! (Score 5, Informative) 129

Modern virtualization doesn't have the overhead the GP cited; the 20% RAM loss and 30% CPU capacity loss numbers cited by the AC you responded to are absurd fabrications. I use KVM on Debian hosts to power a large number of VMs running a variety of operating systems, and the loss of CPU bandwidth and throughput with guests is negligible due to hardware virt extensions in modern CPUs (where "modern" in fact means "most 64-bit AMD and Intel CPUs from the last few years, plus a small number of 32-bit CPUs"). Using the "host" CPU setting in guests can also directly expose all host CPU facilities, resulting in virtually no losses in capabilities for mathematically-intensive guest operations. As far as memory is concerned, far from resulting in a 20% loss of available RAM, I gain a significant amount of efficiency in overall memory utilization using KSM (again, used with KVM). On a host running many similar guests, extremely large gains in memory deduplication may be seen. Running without KSM doesn't result in significant memory consumption overhead either, as KVM itself hardly uses any RAM.

The only significant area of loss seen with modern virtualization is disk IO performance, but this may be largely mitigated through use of correctly tuned guest VM settings and updated VirtIO drivers. The poster you replied to is ignorant at best, and trolling at worst.

Slashdot Top Deals

A penny saved is a penny to squander. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...