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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:BTRFS is getting there (Score 1) 254

While you are correct that ZFS /w raid-z doesn't have a write hole problem, you got the reasons for it a little wrong, so consider these just helpful tips from a ZFS developer. The real trick with raid-z is ZFS' COW nature combined with the fact that all writes a full-stripe writes (variable stripe size). Alternatively, you could say that ZFS doesn't really have anything like a stripe, but instead has a variable block component distribution map which depends on the block's location and size. Here's the actual code that does the raid-z map computation.

RAID5 has n data disks plus one dedicated parity-only disk; ZFS distributes all data and all parity across all disks

RAID-5 also spreads parity among all component disks. Each stripe, the parity disk is switched. This is done to achieve higher throughput on reads, as without it, one disk would always sit idle for read workloads.

ZFS updates metadata before data

Actually, ZFS updates metadata together with user data, but the trick is that the update is never performed in place. So what happens is that we write user data along with nearly all the metadata needed to access it. Then, once everything has finished writing (and has been sync'ed to stable storage), we update the root block pointers to point to the new metadata tree and again, sync those. In this respect ZFS is much more like an ACID-compliant database than just a conventional filesystem.

Comment Re:CDDL and GPL don't mix (Score 1) 254

If anybody could sue Canonical for shipping ZFS in Ubuntu, it couldn't be Oracle, because the CDDL doesn't prohibit combining CDDL'd code with other licenses, provided the CDDL'd bits remain CDDL and that you distribute them to your users. It's the GPL that prohibits these combos - hence the "infectious license" moniker. So it'd have to be Linux copyright holders suing Canonical (oh the irony) for presumably combining the GPL'd Linux kernel with the CDDL'd ZFS code. Seeing as nothing like this has yet happened even with Canonical distributing the much more egregious Nvidia binary blob, I think the entire notion of this being a real legal hurdle is nothing but GPL-purist FUD.

Comment Re:BTRFS is getting there (Score 1) 254

The write hole in btrfs is AFIAK also present in zfs and listed as a risk of a power failure during write on a raid pool with COW filesystems.

The problem you describe makes no sense in ZFS. ZFS never overwrites in-place and a synchronous write is not acknowledged until all component devices (including parity) have sync'ed to stable storage. ZFS will never ever try to read a partially written stripe block (simply because it has no pointers to it yet). After a synchronous write (O_SYNC) returns, it is guaranteed to have all of its data available, regardless if it was overwriting a portion of a file in place, or appending new data to a file.
I think you're misunderstanding how raid-z actually works. raid-z is kinda like RAID-5, but not completely and it's this difference that allows ZFS to not have a write hole at all. All writes to a raid-z, regardless of size, are "full-stripe". The key in ZFS is that there is no fixed stripe size. I'd recommend Jeff Bonwick's original article on raid-z for a writeup of the principles and Matt Ahrens' article ZFS RAIDZ stripe width, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love RAIDZ for a nice diagram illustrating the layout.

Comment Re:Shill, Troll, or Idiot? (Score 1) 325

It's irrelevant whether the farmer contaminated his crops accidentally or deliberately, the problem is Monsanto having the patent in the first place.

So if I'm understanding you right, you want GMO technology to not be patentable subject matter. Do you think that advancement in this avenue of technology is not an overall benefit? Or do you believe there's a better approach to achieving it, for example through publicly (i.e. governmentally) funded R&D projects. In my experience, the anti-genetic-patent camp significantly overlaps with the general anti-GMO camp, simply because they believe GMO not to have significant-enough benefit to society and the anti-genetic-patent stance is merely a vehicle to be used to achieve the goal of ending GMO development. Which is it? Do you support GMO technology and simply want to terminate its patentability (in which case I ask how for alternative means to encourage its R&D), or do you object to GMO as a technology in general and are merely using the patentability argument as a tool to achieve another goal?

If they have the ability to sue anyone who infringes their patent

Yes, that's how patents work.

then depending on their goodwill to only go after people who tell them they've done it deliberately is incredibly naive, regardless of any other evidence of what they've actually done

Wait, so are you saying that nobody should be able to sue for patent infringement, even if the plaintiff believes that willful infringement can be demonstrated in court? I'm probably misunderstanding you here. Can you please rephrase that last sentence?

Comment Re:No, it's about Legislated Famine (Score 1) 325

Why otherwise would Monsanto need to patent the seeds?

Because otherwise anybody could take their seeds and by virtue of all life being essentially a super-efficient self-replicator, coat-tail several billion dollars's worth of research for pure personal enrichment. If somebody spends countless resources to invent something really novel, I have no problem recognizing their right to benefit from said invention by guaranteeing to them, for a reasonable period of time, exclusivity to that idea. At the same time, nobody in the public should be forced to use said invention and therefore pay royalties. As far as I'm aware 1) farmers don't have to use Monsanto's GM seeds 2) Monsanto has publicly vowed (and AFAICT has not yet reneged on this promise) to compensate farmers for accidental contamination and even to remove it and 3) there hasn't yet been a case where a farmer really apparently has had accidental cross-contamination and Monsanto sued anyway. I've heard of plenty of cases where Monsanto sued farmers, but those have almost always been for illegal large-scale use of their GM seeds, or for violation of contract. Is Monsanto litigious? It appears so. But I've yet to discover a case where they've sued in bad faith.

Comment Re:Read it again! (Score 1) 325

Schmeiser never stated that the 1998 crop was compromised, but that the seeds he planted were from 1997.

He could feign ignorance if he didn't intentionally concentrate the gene expression by spraying with roundup. He knew what he was doing. He deliberately tried to surreptitiously obtain the GM trait by exploiting what he perceived to be a legal loophole. If he had not sprayed with Roundup to intentionally concentrate the gene expression, I'd be fully on your side. He'd have been an innocent victim of the "Big Bad Corporation" trying to pressure little people. But he knew damn well that what he was doing was in effect copying GM technology without a license. Or if you think he was in his right to copy and commercially exploit the patented GM trait that had accidentally gotten expressed on his field, let me ask you this: is it okay to copy and sell copyrighted works, provided the first copy got into your possession by accident (e.g. you one day found it lying on your lawn)?

Do yourself a favor and read the whole page, or else you will simply embarrass yourself.

Ouch, somebody's got a sensitive spot for this. I don't give a fuck either way. I'm not in the farming business, not even by remote proxy. But I don't agree with the complete abolition of intellectual property rights, which is what you apparently seem to have a problem with.

Comment Re:Shill, Troll, or Idiot? (Score 1) 325

The Schmeiser case was exactly the fraudulent one I was talking about should not be brought up. He intentionally planted GM canola that he fully knew contained Monsanto's GM technology. He sprayed his own field with Roundup, which he knew would kill anything non-resistant. The only thing that survived was cross-polinated seed. He then took that seed and replanted it. That's why he had 95-98% concentration of the GM crop. This wasn't an accident. He knew what he was doing when he sprayed Roundup on it to select only for the GM variety.
I googled the thing you suggested exactly and the top hits are all either about the Schmeiser case, or are rebuttals of GM myths, one prominent one of which is exactly this one: that Monsanto sues farmers for accidental contamination. So I'm still curious. Do Monsanto really do this? I don't know, but so far, the evidence seems pretty thin on the ground.

Comment Re:No, it's about Legislated Famine (Score 1) 325

Once you plant GM crops and their genes spill over to non-GM crops, Monsanto will lay claim to the non-GM seeds and sue the farmer to death.

Can you cite an example of this happening? I'm genuinely curious. I know of only one case where Monsanto has sued a farmer for cross-polination. It was shown in court that the farmer actually was trying to deliberately and surreptitiously acquire GM seeds through a roundabout way.

Comment Re:As a UAV flyer myself... (Score 1) 77

We wouldn't need overburdening regulation if these dumbasses would act like adults with more than two brain cells to rub together. This is why we can't have nice things.

Alas, it's the 1% of dumbasses that might eventually make regulation a necessity. If there's one constant in the world, it's that there will always be some idiots.

Comment Re:As a UAV flyer myself... (Score 4, Insightful) 77

100x this. As a pilot myself, we're acutely aware of things like temporary flight restrictions over crowded spaces (especially games) and restricted areas over places with special security requirements. Now I'm not a fan of overburdening regulation, but I fully support public education of all potential drone pilots that as soon as they put their craft over anybody's head, it's no longer just a toy. Maybe even require a license to fly a drone over/near populated areas.

Comment Re:What happens when video is lost? (Score 1) 104

So there's two aspects to this: the controlling aspect and the surveillance aspect. Airports with low traffic volume are fine with procedural controlling (no need for high traffic density) and airports with high traffic volume can afford ground radar. The surveillance aspect is almost pointless. In good visibility, it's very low priority (aircraft can see each other anyway) and in poor visibility, which is when it's most needed, it doesn't work anyway. Mind you, I'm talking about some sort of automated optical surveillance system. Not just a bunch of cameras relaying a video feed to a remote human controller - that actually isn't a bad idea in itself. Also, an even cheaper and more reliable method is already being deployed, isn't weather-dependent either and doesn't require a multi-megabit fat internet pipe between airport and controlling station. Quite frankly, an automated optical system is pointless.

Comment Re:How is this news? (Score 1) 104

The difference is the type of airport. You reference a general aviation example, while the article is talking about a commercial airport.

No, there are tons of commercial airports without radar coverage and with only procedural control and they manage perfectly fine. Imagine this, they're able to operate even in bad weather when controller can't see the planes! What unholy sorcery!

Sundsvall airport handles over a quarter million passengers per year.

Holy tits, when you write it like "quarter million" it sounds so bombastic! But in reality it averages out to one aircraft movement about every 1-2 hours (and that's being generous with daytime-only operations). Yawn...

Comment Re:Expect major BIAS (Score 1) 502

100% agree. The A-10 isn't broken, she's a solid platform that we can build on.

Maybe increase the engine power a few percent.

This is actually quite a trivial thing. The TF34 is quite dated by modern standards and the civilian variant, the CF34, has been continuously updated since the 70s. By my rough estimate, 3-7% higher thrust with 5-10% lower specific fuel consumption should be easily there. Higher gains would probably require significant airframe modifications to switch to a completely new engine type.
Actually significant weight reductions can be easily achieved in the avionics. This, combined with improved airframe internals (such as your mentioned inclusion of carbon fiber parts in stress members) could probably increase performance even further.

A freelance is one who gets paid by the word -- per piece or perhaps. -- Robert Benchley