Comment Re:SCCM (Score 1) 294
Bah, a pageful of links doesn't have the same weight as a ream of paper dropped on the table in front of each participant =)
Bah, a pageful of links doesn't have the same weight as a ream of paper dropped on the table in front of each participant =)
Interesting, you're right the IODrive 2 brings MLC much closer to SLC, there's only a 2x performance delta on an IOPS/GB basis (270k 4k random writes vs 140k for 400GB vs 365GB), for the first generation (which I own a number of) the gulf was much wider.
SLC is ~10x the IOPS/GB for random writes compared to MLC, reads are generally only 20-30% faster.
Why write anything? Include the full expanded content from the MS KB article for the update, they generally run 1-5 pages each if printed on 8.5x11/A4
I have never seen a smaller version ssd have a better IOPS number than a larger one.
I have, plenty of times, SLC has better IOPS/GB than MLC and within MLC eMLC has better IOPS/GB than tMLC. So for a given number of dollars the smaller drive will have better performance.
Say what?!?
Crucial M500 480GB = $240 or $.50/GB
WD BLACK SERIES WD4003FZEX 4TB = $260 or $.065/GB
Seagate NAS HDD ST3000VN000 3TB = $139 or $.046/GB
prices are current at newegg
The HDD's are around 10x as cheap per GB.
I'd recommend a standing desk to anyone with the willpower to make it through the transition.
And I'd recommend a sit-stand desk to anyone at all. Even if you don't stand all the time (I don't), being able to spend part of your day standing will make you feel better without discomfort, in fact being able to switch back and forth is more comfortable than sitting.
Then it's not the same as mine. I've also followed the company from the beginning... and I have the benefit of the insider view.
Unless your insider view involved board meetings making top-level executive decisions, I'm not impressed.
Obviously not, but you may not realize how open the company is internally. Larry Page stands up in front of the entire company every week, for example, and takes -- and answers -- live questions. There are no negative consequences for asking hard questions, and hard questions do get asked. Sometimes the executives duck or dance around them, but not very often, and questions that aren't really answered continue getting asked until they do get answered.
In addition to that, other than things like acquisitions there are very few "top-level executive decisions" at Google. Most decisionmaking is driven from the bottom up.
You're probably still not impressed. Whatever. I'm just giving you my perspective and opinion. I would think that an intelligent insider's viewpoint would be of use to you; you're certainly free to dismiss it, whether or not that makes any sense. Time will tell, and I'm quite confident that the future will bear out my statements.
YouTube was a very obvious acquisition. What YouTube needed to survive and grow was low-cost scalability and a way to monetize the views it was getting. What Google had was massive data centers and network connectivity, plus a proven revenue model.
YouTube managed to grow to epic proportions before Google had to "save" them, as you imply. They also good have slapped ads onto their service at any time without Google buying them out.
Not according to YouTube employees who made the transition.
...when the main problem isn't really sitting down, but being STILL in the same position hour after hour.
This is why it's not a "standing desk" but a "sit-stand desk". The idea is that you alternate between sitting and standing, changing position every hour or two.
My basis is the same as yours, except not from the inside, and not from just three years.
Then it's not the same as mine. I've also followed the company from the beginning... and I have the benefit of the insider view.
The tipping point came when they bought YouTube for an obscene amount of money (at the time). You don't spread your tendrils in such fashion throughout the industry just because you like technology.
YouTube was a very obvious acquisition. What YouTube needed to survive and grow was low-cost scalability and a way to monetize the views it was getting. What Google had was massive data centers and network connectivity, plus a proven revenue model. YouTube also needed a better search engine, and Google was interested in finding ways to index and search non-textual content. It was an ideal match, technologically.
Google's primary goal is the technology, the profits and competitive advantage are a means to that end, not the other way around.
They are empire building. The technology is a means to that end.
The basis for your claim is?
The basis for my claim is three years of seeing how the company operates and what decisions it makes, and how, from the inside.
At least, won't everyone who's paid a middle to upper middle class wage, buys a house and saves for retirement eventually be a millionaire?
If you want to retire at 65 and have enough money to live a decent life for 30 years after that, you need pretty close to a million dollars plus a paid-off house. And, frankly, it's not that hard to accumulate a million dollars of net worth over a ~40-year career, assuming reasonable returns on your retirement account and modest appreciation on your home. I'm actually targeting net assets of two million for retirement, given that it's still 20 years away and I expect that inflation will roughly halve the value of the dollar between now and then.
Except that's bullshit, because if people really cared about using their guns to defend our freedoms, there would already be a gallows set up on Capitol Hill with half of congress swinging from it.
Utter nonsense.
There are problems -- lots of them -- but peaceful civilian control of our government has not yet failed. Things aren't bad enough to justify civil war, but that doesn't mean it will never get to that point.
And to pretend that the Founders never intended the Constitution to be amended is silly since we have an amendment process.
Of course they intended it to be amended. Which means that if people would like to ban civilian firearm possession, they should amend the constitution. Not that any such amendment would have a prayer of getting ratified.
Hackers of the world, unite!