Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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 Hyrbid? What's Intel's production problem? (Score 5, Insightful) 140

32 GB of Optane for $77 is $2.40 per GB, Samsung 850 Pro 1 TB is $0.50 per GB. Intel is nearly 5x more expensive.

Hybrid storage systems are common in the enterprise SAN market, but generally to be useful they need something like 20% of capacity to be flash. At ratios of 1-3% of HDD capacity, I don't see the Intel use case as being especially useful.

I had a Seagate 2.5" years ago that was 32 GB flash plus 512GB and it only felt marginally faster than a standard disk drive. You didn't notice serious performance boosts until you went completely flash.

So does Intel have a yield problem or are they still ramping up production facilities to make these in quantity? It's hard to see a system more convoluted than straight SATA or NVMe flash disk being that big of a deal. I think in order to make this product competitive it has to be offered at $/GB competitive with ordinary flash disks or only a small premium.

Comment Re:Vigorous debate? Surely you jest (Score 1) 488

I've found the IT world (since I've worked full-time in it, about 1990) has always veered slightly libertarian, but not usually hard-core, more freedom oriented than dystopian libertarian.

Slashdot comments have degraded, but it's been years in the making, not a particularly recent phenomenon. IMHO there's too many politically oriented stories and maybe not enough real technology, but on the other hand I also think that real technology has been kind of idling over the last few years, too.

Comment Re: Time to switch (Score 1) 216

Bahaha, what's this full time Exchange admin you speak of? It's not 1998 and we're not struggling to keep a Exchange 5,5 box running on dedicated hardware anymore.

There is no Exchange admin anymore, at least not at any company under 1000 users or with fewer than a couple of servers. That work is done by the same admin team that manages AD, file sharing, etc, and is mostly part time.

If Exchange was your sample company's only server, then I totally agree O365 is ideal. But in most medium sized companies Exchange server isn't even a drop in the bucket anymore unless you're doing something really stupid with journaling. In the era of virtualization, the data center space, power, hardware, and nearly all the expertise is already purchased.

The marginal cost to run Exchange is trivial if you already have this infrastructure in place. The O365 math is based on these false ideas about "dedicated admins" and a bunch of dedicated hardware that went away years ago. In any organization not run by retards, running Exchange competently shouldn't be a major burden.

If you're running enough mailboxes/servers for Exchange that you can justify a dedicated admin (which I assume would be dozens of servers, many DAGs, a real complex mess) I'm not sure if O365 is a "fix" at that point, either, because now you're talking such a large userbase that the O365 licensing gets into real serious money.

Comment Re:Confirmation Bias (Score 1) 305

I would always have ignored screaming lunatics.

I think it's more of a subtle (and not so subtle) condescending attitude to "the other side". Pick your adjectives -- dishonest, cruel, stupid, immoral, and so on. Even when it's not explicitly stated.

I think those kinds tones are much harder to pull off in face-face encounters. People are forced to be more accommodating in person.

Comment Re:Cultural ethics won't allow work-free life (Score 1) 280

I agree with your logic, but the problem is that automation won't arrive all at once and the taxation burden isn't shifting to capital.

As long as the capital class continues to manipulate the tax code to fund government on the backs of wage earners, they will be able to continue to demonize people who aren't working as "stealing from working people." Capital will be successful at maintaining this Potemkin Village political economy because of lobbying and low political participation by the poor and unemployed.

The jobs will disappear slowly until there's a large, unemployed underclass, a for-display-only middle class, mostly made up of the police forces necessary to keep the underclass in line and defend capital's wealth.

Comment Cultural ethics won't allow work-free life (Score 3, Interesting) 280

Look at how bought into the "work ethic" we are and how many people justify what amounts to luck (if not outright criminality) as "hard work" and thus entitlement to moral superiority (up to and including control of others).

We already treat people who can't work for various reasons as worthless and disposable, I just can't see any transition to robotic work that requires fewer workers resulting in the people who own the robots willing giving away their added profit from automation to displaced workers.

"Surely they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, just as I pulled myself up by the straps on my hand-made Italian leather boots bought with my family inheritance money."

Comment Re:Confirmation Bias (Score 2) 305

I can think of two people I know on social media. One is very academic/intelligent (specialty pediatrician) and very left wing, one is very practical/intelligent but extremely right wing.

But I find myself turned off by both. Despite the former's reasonableness, they come off snide and elitist. The latter just comes off dumbed-down, parroting a lot of right wing nonsense.

What's kind of fascinating to me is that it's less their *ideas* that bother me. I agree with the pediatrician some of the time. I agree (conceptually, at least) with some of the right wing ideas.

It's the *presentation* and tone of both that turn me off, and neither person comes off that way in person. I think that's what contributes to the corrosiveness of social media, it's less about the ideas than their presentation and tone.

Comment Re:We ran the same calculus (Score 1) 216

However....backup, anti-virus, spam filtering, and a DR solution drives up the cost very quickly.

The marginal cost of backup and DR when you're *already* doing those things for an on-prem server environment is pretty close to zero, and if you're already virtualized and have a virtual-oriented backup software you probably already have DR integrated into your backup. AV and anti-spam are almost always done best these days by a third party service and the good ones do both anyway.

From the numbers I've run, it usually is cheaper to do it on prem above about 50 users with a 3 year benchmark. If you time the upgrade right, you can probably get 5 years out of it without falling more than a rev behind and cut the 50 user number way down.

It's pretty obvious Microsoft is heading subscription-only for everything. Since 2013, Exchange has lost much of its GUI which I think has been a way to scare on-prem admins away. They will ultimately either price on prem high enough that only a few compliance/security focused large organizations will consider it or support hybrid only (meaning you're paying for O365, used or not).

Cloud is about permanent vendor-lock in and rent-seeking, not economics. The marginal cost of a 5-9s commercial data center for hosting cloud services is greater than the marginal savings to users, which is why hosted systems always end up being so expensive unless you're doing something really trivial like a static web site.

Comment Re:Examples (Score 1) 216

OwnCloud is almost there. IMHO, the devs should have a team which focuses on packaging a complete "appliance" images like pfSense capable of managing the storage subsytem from a web gui.

When I last looked at it, someone had done this themselves but it took some shell work to manage the OS storage side of things, certificates, etc.

There are canned EC2 instances, but for storage intensive versions the cost is approaching or over $1/hr.

Comment Re: Time to switch (Score 2) 216

I'm curious how big companies justify anything over $5 a month.

Most companies of any size have virtualization which almost always means that running Exchange amounts to software licensing and a fairly thin amount of admin time.

A single Exchange server should scale to 500 users pretty easily -- at $35 month, you're making a $175,000 commitment or $525,000 over 3 years. The office and Exchange licensing for on-prem isn't $525,000.

I know some organizations have struggled with Exchange reliability, but I've worked in the managed services and consulting space and the vast majority of on-prem installs I've worked with have been extremely reliable and problems have usually been the result of some really bad admin decisions.

I've laid the costs out side by side for customers who have run on-prem, including admin costs, and almost none have chosen 365.

Comment Re:I don't expect action on this (Score 2) 49

I remember those 16 oz returnable bottles and how carrying two 8 packs back to the dorm two blocks damn near killed my hands they were so heavy.

I have a hard time believing that germaphobes, and not cost, had anything to do with the death of "Coke bottles". Unless you only eat fast food, EVERY ITEM ON YOUR RESTAURANT TABLE except the food has been used before, and that's just ONE example.

Those returnable bottles were extremely heavy, 12 ounces empty when they held 16 ounces of liquid. An eight pack weighs 6 pounds empty, 14 pounds full. The fuel cost alone of hauling around tons of glass bottles is enough to justify switching to cans and plastic bottles.

And this is in fact what's been driving the craft beer industry to adopt canning over bottles. The weight and volumetric inefficiency of bottles is very high. Cans are highly recyclable and the linings are good enough that the flavor isn't compromised. They stack denser and weigh less than bottles. They don't break as easily.

Comment Re:Sponsors? (Score 1) 223

It's not a legitimate criticism? I mean, if you take a healthy person and bang them with a load of insulin they're not going to become hypoglycemic, especially with the absence of a load of actual glucose for the insulin?

If you have a well-understood cause-effect and you claim the cause is there don't you have to explain the lack of a reaction for similar causes?

Slashdot Top Deals

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso

Working...