On 08/03/2012 10:51 AM, Richard Pieri wrote:
On 8/2/2012 10:57 PM, Mark Woodward wrote:
going. They eventually gave up when Ameritrade wouldn't commit to
replacing the entire cluster with bigger servers.
Ahhh Bingo! We have the problem.
Yes. Relational databases don't scale. You just keep
In our drawn out discussion about databases, and most discussions about
databases this happens as well, the subject of HUGE scalability was
trotted out. Now I am by no means dismissing big data as a real
problem. Seriously, I worked on some pretty large systems -- hundreds of
servers. It is a
I share a computer with my wife. She sticks to Windows 7, I generally
use Linux. There are a lot of partitions on the systems, NTFS, VFAT,
and ext4. I would like to have a virtual Linux client running on W7
that I can either ssh to, or ftp mount partitions from a laptop.
I've used
On 08/04/2012 11:24 AM, Mark Woodward wrote:
In our drawn out discussion about databases, and most discussions
about databases this happens as well, the subject of HUGE scalability
was trotted out. Now I am by no means dismissing big data as a real
problem. Seriously, I worked on some pretty
On 08/04/2012 11:33 AM, Jerry Natowitz wrote:
I share a computer with my wife. She sticks to Windows 7, I generally
use Linux. There are a lot of partitions on the systems, NTFS, VFAT,
and ext4. I would like to have a virtual Linux client running on W7
that I can either ssh to, or ftp mount
Big is relative. Small companies grow, and when they grow they want
their operations to scale to match. So yeah, Facebook ignored scaling
at the start but the result is an excessively complex system that's a
costly nightmare to maintain.
--
Rich P.
Mark Woodward ma...@mohawksoft.com observed:
My favorite example is facebook. Yes, they are a big data show case.
OMFG they have a lot of data and a lot of computational requirements.
They did not start out dreaming of big data. It started small and grew.
I believe that this inadvertent
Quite awhile ago I set up Linux clients on a Linux host, and looking
for greater disk performance I gave the clients disk partitions
directly. I do not know if it made things faster, but I do know that
it makes things a pain in general. File systems are nice, they offer
lots of features.
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 10:50:02 -0700
Rich Braun ri...@pioneer.ci.net wrote:
Another example is firewall security: if you've got this cool new
web site running, and later decide to add firewalls:
I can speak to this specifically: adding firewalls after the fact will
break your product. In the
I may not have been specific enough in what I want to do. I want the Linux
client to be able to directly mount ext4 partitions, not to do raw I/O to
partitions.
Many decades ago (3) I worked on a project that did raw disk I/O. This was
back in the days of washing machine sized drives, with
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Jerry Natowitz j.natow...@rcn.com wrote:
I may not have been specific enough in what I want to do. I want the Linux
client to be able to directly mount ext4 partitions, not to do raw I/O to
partitions.
Actually, I think you do want raw I/O.When a native
On 08/04/2012 01:50 PM, Rich Braun wrote:
Mark Woodward ma...@mohawksoft.com observed:
My favorite example is facebook. Yes, they are a big data show case.
OMFG they have a lot of data and a lot of computational requirements.
They did not start out dreaming of big data. It started small and
In my experience, if you're going to use either VMware Workstation or VMware
Fusion or VirtualBox then you really shouldn't bother with raw disk access.
It's a pain to configure and if you make a mistake then you can destroy things
like your operating system. As long as you have sufficient
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 18:22:34 -0700
Rich Braun ri...@pioneer.ci.net wrote:
Performance is equal to or possibly better than the bare-metal,
This is not possible. Even with raw disk I/O the guest does not talk
directly to the disk controllers. It talks to the emulated controllers
exposed by the
14 matches
Mail list logo
