Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Sony security: strong or weak? (Score 1) 340

If your mail system doesn't strip out executable content from attachments (especially the low-hanging fruit like EXE, DLL, SCR, etc.) -- then your IT folks need to be beaten with a clue bat.

Heck, that rule should have been in place almost two decades ago at this point once the various VBS / SCR trojans first started hitting mail user's inboxes.

Comment: Re:Why no 2tb model? (Score 1) 127

by WuphonsReach (#48578309) Attached to: Samsung SSD 850 EVO 32-Layer 3D V-NAND-Based SSD Tested
You're young. Early PCs cost 4-5k. Individual hard drives were in the $1000 range back in the 80s.

For someone who absolutely needs 10TB of zero-wait storage in a 2.5" form factor, 4-5k is not a big deal. Because pretty soon it will be $2000, then $1000, then $500.

Inexpensive enterprise SSD is having a big impact on how you spec out servers now. Do you build something with a bunch of 15k RPM drives in a RAID 0+1 array, short-stroked and end up with about 1TB of useful space? Or do you simply put 2x1TB in a RAID-1 array in a much smaller unit?

I paid about $650 per drive last week for 1TB enterprise quality SSDs. I expect them to be below $400 by this time next year. By 2016, I suspect you will not be able to buy a 15k RPM SAS drive as the enterprise SSDs are crushing them from above on price/performance.

Comment: Re:100k employees making 100k a day in email (Score 1) 215

by WuphonsReach (#48477199) Attached to: Consortium Roadmap Shows 100TB Hard Drives Possible By 2025
(shrugs) your IT is definitely stuck in the 2000s (i.e. 5+ years ago).

Cost per TB (raw storage, the hardware to hold the storage, plus the backup tapes / disks) for bulk storage - is definitely more like $800-$1000 per TB these days and not $10k. The sweet spot for bulk storage these days is the 3TB 3.5" enterprise SATA drives at about $230 each. Add in the loss of capacity due to RAID + server costs and you're at about $500/TB of actual storage.

Primary storage is still much more expensive at $1500-$2000 per TB. But primary storage is using SSDs (around $1/GB) or 15k SAS drives (about $0.35/GB to $0.50/GB). And not the relatively inexpensive 3TB enterprise drives at $0.08/GB.

Comment: Re:About time (Score 1) 313

by WuphonsReach (#48477039) Attached to: Windows 10 To Feature Native Support For MKV and FLAC
After all those years of the big sweaty one Nadella is just the breath of fresh air that MSFT needed!

I'll believe that once they spin off some divisions and simplify licensing costs for corporate users. And release all of their applications on Android + iOS + OS X.

This is just a retrenchment. Their game plan is still "lock-in lock-in lock-in", also known as "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish".

Comment: Re:How about transfer rate and reliability? (Score 1) 215

by WuphonsReach (#48474201) Attached to: Consortium Roadmap Shows 100TB Hard Drives Possible By 2025
In practice, SSDs have only 20-100x the IOPS of a similar number of spinning platter drives. Which is still a huge improvement, but not three orders of magnitude (1000x). The bigger advantage is that when you have more workers accessing the drive, latency performance doesn't dive off a cliff like it does with spinning platter drives. It instead degrades gracefully on the SSDs.

SSDs are definitely edging 15k SAS drives out of the market. SSDs do everything at 15k SAS drives can do, with at least an order of magnitude more IOPS/drive, for only about 2-4x the cost of the 15k SAS drive. And putting a writeback SSD cache in front of a spinning platter drive array is even more economical.

Comment: Re:What about long-term data integrity? (Score 1) 438

by WuphonsReach (#48468439) Attached to: How Intel and Micron May Finally Kill the Hard Disk Drive
A powered-down SSD that has been written once should be able to retain data for ~10 years or so. Longer if kept in a cool place.

Nope. Most MLC SSDs will lose their data in about a year and the TLC SSDs in about 6 months of being powered off. (Don't confuse older flash media which was probably SLC with newer MLC/TLC media. Or which had larger feature sizes.)

As the size of the feature that stores your bits shrinks, so does the archival lifetime before something bad happens to one or more of the bits. That holds true for everything from tape, to hard drives, to CDs to flash drives.

Comment: Re:Empty article.. (Score 3, Interesting) 438

by WuphonsReach (#48464585) Attached to: How Intel and Micron May Finally Kill the Hard Disk Drive
Also incorrect assertion that drives don't go faster than 7200 (there are 15k drives, just they are pointless for most with SSD caching strategies available).

With Enterprise SSD drive prices hitting $1/GB (granted some are still $2-3/GB), the days of 15k RPM drives are definitely numbered. You get 50-100x the IOPS out of SSDs compared to the 15k RPM SAS drives. That means for a given level of IOPS that you need, you can use a lot fewer drives by switching to SSDs.

I'd argue that if you are short-stroking your 15k SAS drives to get increased IOPS out of the array, it's past time to switch to enterprise SSDs.

Comment: Re:How do WE fight this? (Score 1) 155

by WuphonsReach (#48459895) Attached to: Sony Pictures Computer Sytems Shut Down After Ransomware Hack
Using rdiff-backup, rsnapshot or rsync across the LAN via SSH in a "pull" configuration is the safest. The server pulls the files from the client PC. Alternately, you could do the above in a push configuration and limit where the origin PC can write to on the backup server. Even in a "push" configuration, I don't know of any malware currently capable of figuring out that there is an rdiff-backup script which stores data on a different server.

The server then sends files to tape / disk / offsite.

Basically - you need to have a centralized backup solution with multi-generation removable media.

For immediate restores, you pull the files back off the backup server. The next level after that is pulling files off of removable media which has been kept offsite or disconnected.

Comment: Re:Microsoft Windows only (Score 1) 143

microsoft is one price and you get a server and tools and all the features

That's a good one, go ahead and pull my other leg while you're trying to spin that for Microsoft.

Microsoft licensing is a nightmare. Just look at the segments for the desktop operating system. Or try to figure out which version of MS Office you need and whether a volume license will save you money (and whether you'll be in compliance). The server-side is no different with the different restrictions on the different variants of Windows Server, SQL Server, etc.

(They're still a babe in the woods compared to some other vendors like Oracle, but they're trying to catch up.)

Comment: Re:Microsoft Windows only (Score 1) 143

That meme "security through obscurity" only really applies in cases of improper reliance on "security via obscurity", once the secret is known - the system is insecure and anyone can access it.

Examples of this would be "hand rolled encryption algorithm that we hide in a black box", "secret handshakes", "back doors which are left unlocked".

Comment: Re:I will be changing to FreeBSD too (Score 1) 450

by WuphonsReach (#48347983) Attached to: Joey Hess Resigns From Debian
There's definitely going to be some teething pains. Which is why I'm not rolling out anything production on RHEL7 until 7.2 or 7.3 comes out next year.

But I am looking forward to having (1) log file to dig through instead of two dozen or more. And being able to easily pull that to a centralized log server (and pull is more secure then push). I'm also looking forward to not having to write monit / nagios scripts to restart services if other services restart.

No hardware designer should be allowed to produce any piece of hardware until three software guys have signed off for it. -- Andy Tanenbaum

Working...