 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:491c9a27$1@news.povray.org...
>>> ago...
>>>
>>
>> I do hope it was gold-plated.
>
> SATA-II. Does that count?
No. Mine's also a SATA 2.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail wrote:
>> OK, that's pretty impressive. Does it have RAID capability in hardware?
>
> No. It's still a notebook. Even my desktop doesn't have true hardware
> RAID. The motherboard drivers support RAID, but I wouldn't call that
> hardware.
OK, neither would I.
(FWIW... doesn't Windows support RAID without special drivers anyway? Or
is that only in the server editions?)
>> Also, does it have hardware 3D acceleration? (I still can't believe
>> you can get that in laptops now...)
>
> Yup. It's got a GeForce 7600 built in.
Damn. My *desktop* only has a GeForce 7900GT. o_O
paid for your laptop, do I?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, you say all that, but if I do the same operation using the CLI
> instead, it's instantaneous. Clearly this is just another instance of
> Windows Explorer being retarded. (I know on many computers, Explorer
> uses more RAM than any other process. WTF?)
I don't know any other program that can load so many 3rd party DLLs (COM
objects to be precise).
Oh, maybe iexplore.exe.
http://www.realtamadwarek.org/friends-dont-let-friends-use-ie.jpg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-Nov-08 13:00, Invisible wrote:
>>> In fairness, as I understand it the guy is an SQL Server expert, not
>>> an Oracle expert.
>>
>> No fairness.
>> SQL Server doesn't have the dump feature that he's proposing you use
>> (well, you can do it, but it's non-trivial). SQL Server backups are
>> full database backups and are online backups (can be done while DB is
>> in use) and restore with the DB in exactly the state that it was at
>> the time of the backup
>
> ...so, rather like real Oracle backups then.
>
> Presumably the guy did a little researching on Oracle and found *a* way
> to make a copy of the data, and that's what we're using.
>
> Using a logical backup rather than a physical backup does take up less
> disk space. However, it takes more time to backup and restore (and these
> operations are logged transactions, and triggers can fire, etc.) Myself
> I'd prefer a real physical backup...
>
How much diskspace are we talking about? Remember current price is about
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-Nov-08 19:24, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Gail wrote:
>
>> Personally I consider any database under 100GB small. Over about 700
>> GB is large. Huge is over a couple TB.
>
> Well, I guess Oracle is *designed* for big stuff.
>
> So I guess to all you guys, the 1.2 GB database I'm responsible is
> "microscopic" then? :-)
>
I should learn to read the entire thread before replying :(
So this will allow me to finish the computation of the price of a full
money by not doing a full backup?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, you say all that, but if I do the same operation using the CLI
> instead, it's instantaneous.
I don't know about NT-era OSes, but I remember that for a long time, the
CLI used the DOS 1.0 interface for deleting files, because it let you
specify wildcards. Hence, you had one kernel call that would delete all
the files.
If you use a UNIX-like interface, you have to do "find file, delete
file, find file, delete file, find file, delete file, ...." So on a
directory with a half-million files, you scan the thing a quarter
million times on average (on ext3, at least) or you at least wind up
doing a whole bunch of kernel calls if you have a file system that's a
little better organized about the file layout. To be fair, NTFS and
other tree-based directory systems have to rework the tree when you
delete the files, so this too will be disk I/O overhead.
> Clearly this is just another instance of
> Windows Explorer being retarded.
Nah. It's because there's a different API for DOS 2.0 and later than for
DOS 1.0 and earlier.
> Dude... where do you even buy that much disk space??
Fry's. Best Buy. Circuit City. Any place that sells hard drives. Go down
to the store, shell out $500, and pick up a couple terabytes.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (I still can't believe you can get that in laptops now...)
You can get 7.1 surround sound, mpeg encoders and decoders, and hardware
accelerated 3D in cell phones nowadays, dear. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orchid XP v8 [mailto:voi### [at] devnull]
> ago...
You* shouldn't be allowed to purchase computer equipment without first
checking here:
http://www.pricewatch.com/
On the page for 1 TB hdds:
http://www2.pricewatch.com/hard_removable_drives/sata_1tb.htm
3 of the top 5 state in their summary that international orders are OK,
so shipping to you shouldn't be a problem. The other two might still do
it, they just don't state it.
*And I don't mean the generic "you," I mean specifically you, Andrew.
You've made comments like this in the past about other pieces of
equipment. Really, you could save yourself a lot of money shopping
online.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren New [mailto:dne### [at] sanrrcom]
> Oh, and for S&G purposes, AT&T before the breakup had 9 major
> databases,
> the biggest of which was 320 terabytes, the next biggest of which was
> something like 290 terabytes, etc. And something like 1800 full-time
> employees writing SQL code in >million stored procedures.
"before the breakup"...
Wasn't that, like, 25 years ago?!?!?
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> "before the breakup"...
> Wasn't that, like, 25 years ago?!?!?
Yeah? 1984 was the MFJ. (The "Modified Final Judgement", modifying the
"Final Judgement" of 1934 or so. The "Final Judgement" said "AT&T can
have a monoply". The "modification" was to amend that to say "No, you
can't, and indeed you have to help your competitors and stop doing
anything they already compete with you." Sort of like an idempotent
modification.)
Oh, you mean, back when a terabyte occupied a small room? Yes, that.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
