Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Long story short (ad-less) (Score 1) 173

I think the 1TB/day was additional data transferred, not total.

Yup, you're right, they've been hit by overwhelming 8 TB/day. The point (still true) is that that amount of data was hadled by whole pod with cumulative data throughput of at least 350 TB / day. And that, while not large enough to hold 8 TB data, any of those drives is capable of such daily average data rate, thus the difference in average datarate thrown at pods of different HDDs is not showing the difference in performance of those drives at all.

Comment Re:Long story short (ad-less) (Score 1) 173

Do the maths. You can get 1TB 7200 RPM drive for ... say 60$. 1TB SSD costs you from 350$ upwards (that's at newegg's). The power consumption of typical HDD is around 6W and depending on electricity rate (at my place it's around 25c/kWh) it takes around 22 years to burn enough electricity to cover the drive price difference. And with larger single drive sizes this comparison gets even worse for SSD.

The only reason to ditch HDDs in favour of SSDs is performance. If you only use your data at low speed (such as streaming single Blu-ray video at 54Mbps), any semi-modern HDD will do.

Comment Re:Long story short (ad-less) (Score 1) 173

- Energy Use â" The Seagate drives were 7200 rpm and used slightly more electricity than the Western Digital drives which were 5400 rpm. This small difference adds up when you place 45 drives in a Storage Pod and then stack 10 Storage Pods in a cabinet. - Loading speed â" Edge to Western Digital, by a little over 1 TB per day on average.

That didn't really make sense to me that the 5400 RPM drive beat out the 7200 RPM drive, so I did a bit of research.

How about some elementary arithmetics instead?

1TB of data per day on average boils down to neighbourhood of 11.5MB per second. I doubt that you are currently able to purchase a hard drive that can't sustain writes at several times higher speed. And that's single drive write performance while beforementioned 1TB data did hit whole Pod and was presumably spread over all of drives in the Pod. Hence the figure 1TB daily data is not showing any kind of performance limits ...

More likely the meaning of 1TB daily data was that both test pods got hit by similar amount of data which is not showing the speed difference but rather showing that drives were not idle and thus the nil failure rate was a result which can be achieved under moderate load (things do tend to break under load more often).

Comment Re:Server 2012 already looks like Windows 8. (Score 0) 322

OOP is, IMHO, over-rated. And you can use whatever you want from bash if built-in functionality is not (good) enough for you ... just as you can use .NET from powershell.

And don't whine at the syntax, bash inherits legacy from Thompson shell (yup, that's Ken Thompson we're talking about) via Bourne shell. And that legacy starts in 1971. And legacy is good for many things.

If you want smething more modern, you're free to use whatever interpereter language (perl, python, Tcl, Erlang, Ruby, PHP, Emacs, TeX, ...) as your default command line interpreter.

Comment Re:Great, he's re-invented the X station of yore (Score 4, Informative) 87

Neither the X station nor the dumb terminal "receive pre-rendered content".

You're not entirely right. They both receive partly pre-rendered content. Dumb terminals receive data about which character they need to display at certain (relative) screen location, however the shape of characters is done by terminals. X terminals receive parts of display content pre-rendered as bitmaps, they don't invent any of contents. Indeed they don't receive exact display contents in full and every time (eg. acording to refresh rate), they need to re-assemble full display content from incremental updates received from the mainframe/X client ...

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 1) 216

And for years, Linux was still the only mainstream OS that had good 64-bit support. The only thing holding users back were a couple of proprietary desktop applications that are now finally becoming fully obsolete. System administrators have been able to run full 64-bit Linux on their servers for what, 8 years or so.

Back in year 1999 (yup, that's full 13 years ago) I was using my desktop Linux (Red Hat Linux 5.1) on DEC alpha, which was fully 64-bit kernel and user space. We've been running Linux on some seroius DEC alpha machines instead of running DEC's own UNIX implementation (OSF/1) because it actually behaved better.

After I changed my employer in 2002, I had to downgrade to i386 version (being much more stable than amd64 at the time).

Comment Re:Sweden: "a few cents for the infrastructure" (Score 1) 314

The thing is that with state-of-the-art equipment (not considering antiquated nor cutting-edge equipment) the price/performance curve tends to be flat at the low-performance part and then starts to rise towards high-performance. Meaning that at certain capacity upgrading it is not cost effective any more. At this point, one can decide either to upgrade anyhow and handle the increased price/capacity in some way (eg. charging customers more for same service) or not to upgrade and keep consumption under control.

A bit rough example: if you eat say 2 Big Mac per day, each costing you a $, why doesn't McDonalds offer you eat-all-you-can for 60$ per month? This would make their income the same as it is today, right?
Because many users would over consume and/or start throwing food away (even more than they already do). Which means that they'd have much higher costs ...

The fact is that many of heavy-users of unlimited (or nearly unlimited) plans abuse the bandwidth they've given.

Another common misconception is that telcos still pocket absurdly high profits. They do fine, but their profits dropped a lot. A decade ago, most profits in mobile telecommunications went to telcos and telecom equipment manufacturers. Only small share went to VAS providers and handset manufacturers. Recently things turned upside down: most money goes to VAS (Google et co. through advertising money) and smart handset manufacturers (Apple, Google, Samsung, ...) while less money lands n pockets of telcos and consequently telecom equipment manufacturers. One can not make real money selling infrastructure and unlimited plans are final proof of it. And to add a nail to the coffin: there are only a few telecom-grade equipment manufacturers and the competition between them is not as fierce they want us to believe. It's much less fierce than in general IT industry meaning prices are not always falling with sale volume as one would expect.

In short: as telco industry slave (I'm working for them) I can tell you that things are not nearly similar as in general IT, so one can not make direct comparisons.

Comment Re:Sweden: "a few cents for the infrastructure" (Score 1) 314

You pay things metered because this is a perfect way of keeping consumption under control.

It's not actual transferred bit that costs telco. It's overall capacity that costs telco and if overall consumption is kept under a certain threshold, capacity of infrastructure can be kept lower and thus cheaper.
Did you ever notice that 100Mb ethernet switches generally cost slightly less than 1Gb ones and the 10Gb ones are quite significantly more expensive? Ethernet switch is not consumable, it's infrastructure (among other things).

Comment Re:Sweden (Score 1) 314

A proper telco-grade base station consumes whole lot of electric power just to provide coverage. And some more to actually pass bits to/from users. It really depends on electricity prices, but that can raise to a few hundred euro per month. If there are only a few users with unlimited wireless broadband plan in the covered area (and thus they enjoy high speed), then their subscription only pays electricity of the base station. There's also backhaul and core network which also associate some expenses.

Those bastards telcos actually want to get their investment paid back in a decent time frame and also make some profit. Old (copper) infrastructure had paid back the investment way back, while new infrastructure (fiber, wireless) did not.

Comment Re:50% is not necessarily a large number (Score 1) 359

If the global economy wasn't in such a precarious state, gas would be over $5/gallon *now*! In 2032, $10/gallon gas will be a fond memory.

Talk about US petrol prices. In Europe, petrol price is in vicinity of 1.50€ per litre (likely even more), which is in neighbourhood of $7/gallon.


Submission + - European Operators Stockpiling nano-SIMs ahead of iPhone 5 Launch (

hypnosec writes: European telecom operators are seemingly confident that iPhone5 is going to come with the nano-SIM slot and for this reason they are stockpiling such SIM cards, as noted by Financial Times, indicating that the iPhone 4S successor’s launch is more or less round the corner. “Since Apple has succeeded in getting a newer, smaller nano-SIM standard passed, Europeans carriers are now reportedly placing orders for the tiny new chips in anticipation of the launch.” Read the report. The nano-SIM design is 40% smaller compared to current designs of micro SIM found in many smartphones.

Submission + - AskSlashdot: Lack of status updates by firms a common problem?

dsushant writes: Recently, I encountered a problem while seeking POI data sets. Some companies had announced plans to provide access to data. However, there was no further news & I had to contact them for updates. This led to a series of email's & expected delays.

I'm not sure how many people face this situation, leading to duplication of effort for the same updates. While I have set up a wiki (, its utility is dependent upon contributions based on similar experiences with other organizations. Do you think this is a problem worth solving?

Slashdot Top Deals

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.