Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Disabled (Score 4, Informative) 403

Android devices have a read-write partition and a read-only partition. Out-of-the-box apps go in the read-only partition. There are several reasons for this, one of which is safety --- you can nuke the entire read-write partition and be sure of (a) getting a working factory reset phone and (b) that all user data has been deleted.

If an app's in the read-only partition, then it obviously can't be removed. (Although you can install updates --- the new versions go in the read-write partition and override the read-only one.) All you can do is mark it disabled.

(Of course, if you've rooted your phone, you can remount the read-only partition as read-write and tinker with it to your heart's content. I do this to move updated apps into the read-only partition to save space in the read-write partition. But that only works on rooted phones.)

Comment: Re:Compared to Azure (Score 2) 94

by Just Some Guy (#48014453) Attached to: Amazon Forced To Reboot EC2 To Patch Bug In Xen

The architecture of Google is utterly useless for many businesses cases.There are many use cases where it'd be perfectly appropriate.

it does not and can not provide accurate answers to queries.

In most cases, businesses don't really care about accurate answers to queries; they want quick, more-or-less correct answers. For example, suppose Amazon has a dashboard that shows their book sales on an hourly basis. Timeliness is more important than exactness here, and answers more precise than the pixel resolution of the graph on the big TV are wasted. A "big data" style query that is 99% correct and runs in 5 seconds is much more valuable here than the exact answer that returns in 2 hours.

For accounting types of reporting, slow, exact architectures are probably more appropriate. For realtime analytics, a best guess that comes back immediately may be the right thing.

Comment: Re:BASIC vs. Z80 assembly language (Score 3, Informative) 165

by david.given (#48010685) Attached to: Why the Z-80's Data Pins Are Scrambled
If you're interested in Z80 operating systems, go look at CP/M (seriously: get an emulator, some tools, and write programs for it). It's a fascinating look into just how minimal you can make an operating system and still have something that's not just functional but which spawned, back in the day, a vast ecosystem of tools and software. You suddenly realise just how much fat there is in a modern system (and also why modern systems have all this fat).

Comment: Re:The tipping point (Score 1) 147

by Just Some Guy (#48006611) Attached to: PostgreSQL Outperforms MongoDB In New Round of Tests

you are limited by your storage hardware regardless of what technology you use.

Well, right, but I think we set our expectations too low in some cases. For example, the data item {"key": "foo", "value": "bar"} serializes to 30 bytes of JSON. With a few bytes to act as record separators, a hard drive with a 100MB/s write speed should be table of recording about 3,000,000 items per second. There's a lot more overhead than that, of course! But in the document we're discussing, PostgreSQL was averaging about 1,700 inserts per second, or about 170,000 times slower than the hypothetical maximum. Exactly how much overhead should we expect to have when doing simple inserts into a non-foreign-keyed table?

Cassandra makes data access between many servers easy (once you get used to its specialized API), but you could have done the same on multiple servers with their own PostgreSQL server by sharding your data among them.

Our write throughput was 150 times that of the "fast" PostgreSQL server in the article. We were running Cassandra on a cluster of 4 decent sized (but not heroic) EC2 instances. We had neither the time, money, nor desire to replace a 4-node Cassandra cluster and its out-of-the-box configuration with a 150-node sharded PostgreSQL cluster. Sure, it could be done, but there was no reason in the world why we'd want to.

Cassandra/MongoDB/Redis/etc. are not appropriate replacements for PostgreSQL in every - or even many - cases. Likewise, PostgreSQL is not an appropriate replacement for them when dealing with their own specialized use cases.

Comment: Re:The tipping point (Score 2) 147

by Just Some Guy (#48005391) Attached to: PostgreSQL Outperforms MongoDB In New Round of Tests

If you have a single machine, then Oracle is the best performing database, followed by Postgres. When you need more than 4 dedicated servers hosting a database, then mongo can handle about 180% of the volume that oracle can, and about 220% the volume of postgres, and about 110% the volume of Casandra.

This, this, a million times this. A recent employer needed to be able to sustain 250,000 inserts per second. Not 24/7, mind you, but at random prolonged intervals throughout the day. The "PostgreSQL is the fast" chart shows it handling 10,600 bulk load operations per second or 1,700 individual inserts per second. That would be about 1/150th of the insert load we needed to handle.

I'm a huge fan of PostgreSQL - when it's appropriate. If you need strong relational and consistency guarantees, there's nothing I'd recommend over it. But sometimes you just need to move enormous amounts of data around very, very quickly. That's the use case where various NoSQL stores suddenly become very attractive. We chose Cassandra here because its big-O algorithmic complexity matched up very nicely with our access patterns, being O(1) where we needed it to be and O(n^2) where we couldn't care less.

Comment: Re:Think of the children (Score 2) 353

by Just Some Guy (#48004107) Attached to: FBI Chief: Apple, Google Phone Encryption Perilous
That's certainly possible. Alternatively, the demand for customer privacy might have ratcheted up enough recently that Apple et al started taking them seriously. Not so long ago, such things were something only cypherpunks and a few other geeks cared about. Now my mother-in-law wants to know if her iPhone is secure. That's a sea change in customer opinion, and Apple's and Google's actions could be chalked up to simply meeting market demand.

Comment: Unlike my house keys, sir? (Score 4, Informative) 353

by Just Some Guy (#47999445) Attached to: FBI Chief: Apple, Google Phone Encryption Perilous

Change the subject to house keys and the company to Master Lock. Does Mr. Comey, who is employed by me and my fellow taxpayers, also disagree with strong locks on houses? "What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law." Yes. That's one application, of many, for locks. They can also be used for securing my person, house, papers, and effects, as is explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights. I want to lock my house at night, not just to keep out the police but to keep out everyone who doesn't live here. I want to lock my phone at night for exactly the same reasons. Pity if that's an inconvenience to someone; frankly, I don't care.

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...