Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Incorrect (Score 2) 142

by kervin (#47128055) Attached to: Amazon Wants To Run Your High-Performance Databases

A m3.2xlarge costs 4905.6 per year. You can buy a 32GB RAM 8 CPU core Dell R320 system for $2,666.80 in it's entirety.

If you are comparing with a fixed purchase, you should use the 3-yr reserved price for the M3.2XL, which is $162/month ( includes the initial payment ). This gives you a yearly cost of $1944. And that includes all NOC costs.

If you do not factor in NOC costs in your estimate then you clearly haven't been doing this very long.

Source http://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html

Comment: Says who? (Score 3, Interesting) 119

AWS has some of the lowest cloud prices I've found anywhere. You can get AWS instances for under $3/month reserved according to what you need. 'Small' Linux instances cost about $15/month reserved last I checked. In fact they'll even give you a Micro instance free for a year without spending anything as part of their 'free tier'.

How did you come to the conclusion AWS was expensive?

Comment: Airspeed (Score 1) 66

by kervin (#46556953) Attached to: Goodyear's New State-of-the-Art Airship Makes Its First Flight

If the same standards that grounded Zeppelins after the Hindenburg accident had been applied to aircraft, civilian heavier-than-air passenger transportation would never have taken off.

I suspect the fact that these things traveled about 50 MPH had more to do with their demise than a few high-profile accidents.

Comment: Glacier at $20/mn expensive? (Score 1) 983

by kervin (#46462997) Attached to: How Do You Backup 20TB of Data?

Glacier at $20 per month for 20TB is rediculously cheap by today's standards. And at those sizes, you'd want to ship those drives to Amazon instead of uploading. We do this all the time and it's not that hard.

The price of TBs of storage of course will come down without question. But by today's standards $20/month for a medium that won't "bit rot" on you is an amazing deal.

Comment: Shuttleworth is the reason many use Linux Desktop (Score 4, Insightful) 63

by kervin (#46407875) Attached to: Canonical Ports Chromium To The Mir Display Server

Hate him all you want. But when I looked around for a Workstation preinstalled with Linux, Ubuntu was the only serious choice I got. Redhat didn't even have a preinstalled system they would sell me. That's right, they haven't even paid enough attention to Linux Desktop to have a partner provide a well-spec'ed, modern, supported Linux laptop.

After a lot of digging I found a list of Windows laptops Redhat swore would also run their OS. But asking users to buy one OS ( Windows ) and reinstall another is an automatic fail for the vast majority of desktop buyers. Not that I can't do install an OS, but not having a supported OS is just not worth my time anymore. I'm no longer in college with lots of time to tweak and troubleshoot.

I wish I could go to Redhat.com, enter my credit card and have a partner laptop shipped to me in a few weeks. Complete with modern specs and OS support direct from Redhat. But that's not possible even if I'd happily pay a premium. At least Ubuntu has System76.

Comment: Cat and mouse (Score 1) 387

by kervin (#46231149) Attached to: Ohio Attempting To Stop Tesla From Selling Cars, Again

The simple solution for Tesla is to outsource their galleries to some degree. I believe Tesla did that in some states and the Ohio law bans "affiliated entities" as well, but this really will become a "cat and mouse" game.

Regular dealerships are "affiliated" with the manufacturer at some level, so it sounds like Tesla will have to find that balance as well.

Comment: Browser bytecode engine instead of a language (Score 1) 505

by kervin (#46129273) Attached to: The JavaScript Juggernaut Rolls On

It's sad we're still using a single client side language instead of having the option of running bytecode in the browser. Obscurated JS is just as difficult to read as bytecode, and the browser can also have an automatic bytecode to text "viewer".

Browers should get behind pNaCL or something similar.

Comment: because it's not what they fancy (Score 1) 489

by kervin (#45935739) Attached to: Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High School

Unless you also believe minorities have little interest in Computer Science.

A lot of kids are told from very early they can not do these jobs. That they futures are set and what's in store for them require very little schooling.

These kids fancy more for themselves. But are taught that they can not achieve what they fancy.

That is why many observers believe this is more than just about students doing what they want.

Comment: Affinity Groups versus Intolerance (Score 1) 489

by kervin (#45935677) Attached to: Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High School

Why is there a Korean Christian church around the corner?

Minority populations ( however defined, could be white homosexual males for instance ) often find that they have needs that are not shared with the larger population. For instance Korean Christians may find that they don't speak English well enough to attend regular service. So they form a church that takes care of those special needs.

That in general what an affinity group is suppose to do. If there are needs that the white male population requires that are not fulfilled by the general population, then that population definitely should have an affinity group.

Don't be hateful. There are many groups out there we don't belong to that require support. I have no idea what a Homosexual Caucasian Male goes through, but I'm sure the experience can be bad enough that he may require the support of his peers.

And by the way, that's your example right there. Sexual tolerance campaigns aren't "anti-white-male" as you put it because they help large numbers of homosexual white males.

Comment: Not true (Score 4, Insightful) 241

by kervin (#45782127) Attached to: Why Don't Open Source Databases Use GPUs?

...because I/O is the limiting factor of database performance, not compute power?

Just a few projects into Database Performance Optimization would convince you that's not a true statement. IO/Memory/CPU are in fact largely interchangeable resources on a database. And depending on your schema you can just as easily run out of any of these resources equally.

For instance, I'm currently tuning a SQL Server database that's CPU heavy based on our load projection targets. We could tweak/increase query caching that would cause more resultsets to stay in memory. This would mean that less complex queries would be run, drastically reducing I/O and some CPU resource usage. But then drastically increasing memory usage. This is just a simple example of course to illustrate the point.

Databases run out of CPU resources all the time. And a CPU advancement would be very well received.

My guess as to why this hasn't been done is that it would require end-users to start buying/renting/leasing GPU enabled hardware for their Database infrastructure. This would be a huge change from how we do things today and this sector moves very slowly.

Also we have many fairly old but more important Database advancements which have been around for years and are still almost unusable. If you ever tried to horizontally scale most popular Open-source databases you may know what I'm talking about. Multi-master, or just scaling technology in general, is required by about every growing "IT-dependent" company at some point. But that technology ( though available ) is still "in the dark ages" as far as I'm concerned based on reliability and performance measurements.

I took a fish head to the movies and I didn't have to pay. -- Fish Heads, Saturday Night Live, 1977.

Working...