Posts by Mad Mike

Re: 2.5X what is that really?

"Oh Alli, you know that IBM's daft performance claims simply don't reflect reality. They like to FUD about single-core performance, neatly hiding the fact that the only way they can achieve it is to switch off half the cores in the system (but still leave you paying Oracle licences for all the cores switched off), or even worse by switching off all the cores but one so they can use all the cache from all the cores (but still leaving you paying for ALL the licences). So what you are shrieking about is actually IBM being unable to perform at eight cores, meaning they are indeed last to the game. The truth is shown whenever IBM have to go to a shoot-out against Itanium, they hate it as it exposes their benchmark lies for exactly what they are. If that wasn't true then no-one would have bought anything but Power chips for the last twenty years, and since that very obviously didn't happen it simply shows how much marketing hogwash the whole 2.5x claim and all the other IBM performance claims are. The fact you still constantly repeat the same FUD long after it has been debunked is simply tragic, can't IBM afford to buy their cheerleaders some new FUD?"

So, now you're slagging off the ability to disable some cores for higher performance. Is that because Itanium can't do it? Maybe you'd like to slag off dynamically adjustable SMT? Is that because Itanium can't do it? If you look on TPC-C and SpecInt, you'll notice that it's IBM that always leads the field and normally gets way more done for the same number of cores. I also haven't noticed any of the benchmarks using only a single core per processor or even TurboCore mode (although I haven't looked in the last couple of months). People haven't brought anything but Power chips for the last 20 years for the same reason that Intel haven't got 100% market dominance using x86 or AMD or anyone else for that matter. Given your 'expert' opinion on Itanium, how come Itaniums haven't got 100% market dominance?

I checked on TPC-C the other day and haven't even found any new Itanium benchmarks listed. Don't know about SpecINT. So, who's running from the benchmark wars?

Re: IBM does have details about Power8 in its public roadmap and has for two years

"OK, let's do a simple comparison. Let's pretend I'm a customer asking about software support for my new platform - if I ask the IBM rep can he guarantee that Oracle DB will be available next year for a P795, can the IBM rep guarantee it 100%? The hp rep selling a Superdome2 can guarantee it, the IBM rep can't. If you don't think that is an advantage then it is because your IBM blinkers mean you do not want to admit it is one."

How simplistic you are. Nobody can ever guarantee any software support for any period of time. All sorts of things could happen that cause the support to disappear. In the real world, Oracle would love to pull Oracle support from p-Series. They'd love everyone to use their products; of course they would. However, the revenue that Oracle pull in from p-Series is so large (and is likely to remain so) that pulling support is simply not going to happen. So, your argument is spurious.

Also, don't overplay the judgement handed down. Yes, it says they must continue to support their software on Itanium for as long as Itanium exists. Well, it's well know that software vendors have different versions of the same product for different architectures, often with different features. The judgement doesn't say anything about that. So, Oracle can functionally stabilise the Itanium version of the software (whilst maintaining support), but continue development on the others. This is certain to kill it just as much as anything else. Once the functionality gap is big enough, people simply won't run Oracle on Itanium except for legacy apps that don't require it. Then, Itanium becomes the new mainframe!! And, this is entirely in accordance with the judgement handed down. The judgement never said they had to enhance the software!!

Re: Mad Mike IBM does have details about Power8 in its public roadmap and has for two years

"Really? Is that because IBM and Oracle can't do it?"

Nope. Because nobody in their right minds runs electrical isolation anymore unless something like military. It simply isn't necessary and isn't economic. By the way......nPARs aren't really fully electrically isolated as some components are still shared. Not many I'll grant. Oracle can actually do it as Domains on their current m-Series are electrically isolated as much as nPARs are. However, that's why Oracle are moving away from them. They simply don't make sense anymore.

"But then the image sizes are constrained by the boundaries of the individual servers. The hp npar technology allows you to make smaller or larger partitions withint eh same frame. On the Superdome2 the size of an npar is based on the multiples of the four-socket cellboard, and you can alter them as requirements change. You simply can't do that with individual servers."

I agree. But then, if you're that bad at sizing your servers and predicting future growth, you deserve the extra cost and aggravation. The very fact that nPARs are based around multiples of 4 processors (potentially 32 cores) is one reason they're useless. Even in my FTSE 30 company, that is simply too big. The granularity is hopeless.

"I suggest you go back to troll school and actually learn about the hp tech before you make yourself look any more ignorant."

Standard from someone who can't answer the points. Simply insult the intelligence of someone with arguments and claim their 'knowledge' is poor. Absolute rubbish.

"No they couldn't, they had common electrical components that meant an electrical issue on one partition of a mainframe could take down another partition. I suggest you read something other than the IBM FUD guide."

For your information, I used to work on a mainframe that was (at one point) divided into two electrically isolated partitions. We're talking around the 1986-88 timeframe. It was actually a Hitachi MVS mainframe called a XL70 I think (if memory working). Suggest you go look it up.

"Because IBM couldn't do them? It seems hp made them both technically viable and sold plenty of them, which suggest your just mouthing off sour grapes because IBM didn't manage it."

No, because they are not granular enough and cannot donate processor to another partition when this nPAR doesn't want it. If you want to run with the utilisation levels of a windows x86 server, then fine, but you'll be paying well over the odds. HP may have made them technically work, but I've spoken with HP salesmen about this and very few companies actually used them. Most prefered vPARs or IVMs. This was also reflected at a series of seminars I attended in Bracknell. So, very few actually wanted nPARs.

"Wow, you actually said something factual! Even if it doesn't have anything to do with npars. I see you also forgot about IVM and hp9000 Containers, but then expecting you to know anything more than the IBM FUD soundbites about hp's tech is obviously a bit too much."

Slagging off again, showing no argument to make. For your information, I know plenty about Integrity as I've done in-depth technical analysis of ALL Unix vendors for my company.

"I evidently am. In mine, I work on enterprise systems that require real processing power. You seem to only work on IBM mainframe sales pitches, and using very old FUD for that. I suggest you ask Jesper for help, he at least knows something exists outside the IBM bubble."

Well, either you're a troll (probably true) or your employer is wasting one hell of a lot of money. I work for a FTSE 30 company that requires enterprise scale Unix computing and nobody round here would ever touch nPARs. They are simply too inflexible. I'm perfectly aware of stuff outside the IBM bubble and we run Solaris as well. Of course, that will just feed your rants as your insistence nobody knows anything outside of IBM or Oracle and your continual slagging of these companies and people using them hides your apparent poor choice in the past. We're running big end p-Series servers at 80-90% continual utilisation. We've had them running at 100% for extended periods before without any issues. That's real bang per buck. What's the best you've achieved with nPARs? Bet you struggle to get above 20-30%. All that wasted processing power......now that's efficient!!

Re: IBM does have details about Power8 in its public roadmap and has for two years

'Alli, nothing exposes the silliness of YOUR posts too than their content. ".....curious when Itanium will have hardware virtulization?....." Go read up on npars, available from back in the days of PA-RISC, and which IBM cannot match with Power. That is real, electrically-isolated hardware, something IBM just cannot do, even with the "legendary" mainframe. You can find plenty of info on npars if you use that Google tool you mentioned....'

All completely irrelevant. If you want electrical isolation, go buy seperate servers. Effectively, all you've got are several server stuck together with gaffer tape with nPARs. Completely pointless. And for your information, mainframes used to be able to run electrically isolated partitions. Effectively, the machine was simply cut up into several. However, IBM (and most of the others) have realised that electrically separated partitions might sound good on paper, but they're economically not viable. My company evaluated Integrity some time ago and nPARs counted for nothing. They were, from a practicality point of view, utterly useless. vPARs are a different matter, but then, they're not electrically isolated, so not the same thing.

If you think electrically isolated partitions are the way forward, you are really living in another world. Oracle have exactly the same issue with domains on their M-series servers. Total lack of flexibility and resource sharing, which is the only way of getting good bang per buck on your servers these days.

Re: Surprising....how?

@dante999

I think you're letting your position on this cloud the facts. We know CO2 levels in the past have been way lower and way higher. We also know temperatures have been higher and lower. What we absolutely don't know (except for the last few hundred years at best), the rate of change. Your supposition that the increase is somehow different now to the past is without any foundation in fact. If we know the average temperature was say 10 about 5000 years ago, but 12 about 10000 years ago, it doesn't follow that the temperature changed gradually during that time. It might have been the same for centuries and then suddenly changed 2 in a decade. It might have shot up to 15 at one point, back down to 8, before settling at 10. Just because you have two data points doesn't mean you can draw a straight line between them and the data point we're talking about are millenia apart. So, your point about rate of change is applicable to only the last few hundred years where we have more granular information. Over geological time, it's absolute rubbish. In reality, we have no real idea of rate of change over history.

There has been no one (or even a few) changes since the last climate changes. Climate changes gradually, whereas your statement indicating a 'change' suggests it changes, stays the same, then changes again. Contrary to your previous point in fact. As climate has changed continuously since the planet was formed, you can argue the dinosaurs came about during a change just as much as saying humans did. Yes, human populations have exploded recently (last few hundred years) and there has been the burning of fossil fuels, but you're making a fundamental, unscientific mistake. Just because things happen at the same time, doesn't mean causation is at work. Coincidence does occur as well. We also have no idea how much CO2 mother nature can absorb. Bearing in mind levels have been much higher in the geological past and are lower now, rather suggests mother nature can absorb very large amounts, probably more than we imagine.

I'm not suggesting at all that we carry on as we are. I was saying that we should make sensible changes where we can, but bankrupting the world and throwing ourselves back to pre-industrial times is not an option. Wind farms and lots of other renewable energies (like solar PV) are (for the majority of the world) simply not economically viable and often highly unreliable. It'd no good as a country trashing your economy and pushing people into serious hardship. We make the changes that are sensible when we can. Yes, we should recycle more and we can. Yes, we should research more friendly technologies rather than run at the first available (wind). Tidal and wave are far better, but harder to do.

Contrary to your statement, we have plenty of evidence that previous to the existance of human beings, climate changes of at least this magnitude and potentially greater did occur many times. Yes, these were often associated with species dying out, but the earth survived. We actually (as explained above) know very little about the rate of these early changes. Geologically, there is actually a great deal of evidence to suggest climate changes can and have occured very swiftly (as in a few years or even months) in the past. For instance, there is evidence that the last ice age ended in decades, not hundreds of years.

Some additional help

I guess someone from the Church of England is for any 'additional help' they might be able to bring to bear. Power of prayer or maybe something from a higher being? However, it's good to see the BBC using real scientists with backed up and properly peer reviewed papers on the subject.

Re: Considering...

Sorry!! How does that work. There are just as many looms out there threatening climate change deniers as well. There are loons on both sides threatening the other. This isn't a one way street.

I've got camps near me with climate change vigilantes threatening anyone who tries to chop down some trees and using force on occasion. The nutters are both sides of the fence, not just one.

Re: Is there a way I can filter out crap posts?

@Andrew van der Stock.

I think you're taking a rather extreme view. A lot of your comments are simply wrong as well. The reality is that nobody really knows what's happening. There simply isn't enough data over a long enough period and good enough models to really know. However, because of money, the overwhelming view is that we're the cause and we have to fix it. Is there evidence of this? Some. Is there evidence against this? Some.

Scientists, governments and politicians, contrary to your belief, actually love climate change being mankinds fault. Scientists get lovely big, fat grants to go and research all this and are effectively being paid out of the money provided. Maybe not directly, but certainly indirectly. There are also tons of advisor, business positions being created out of it. So, scientists love it. Continued, gainful employment. If it was shown that mankinds impact on climate change was tiny and there was nothing we could do about, climate scientists would be in the dole queue in their thousands!! So, climate scientists have a very big vested interest in it being our fault and ours to fix.

Governments and politicians love it as well for one simple reason. It gives a brilliant excuse for raising taxation. Just look at what's happening in the UK. Fuel duty escalator. Tax on fuel to power and heat your home etc.etc. Do you ever hear of a politician saying 'We'll tax that less because it's environmentally friendly?' Not normally. It's normally increase the taxation on the unfriendly things. So, they love it because it fills their coffers and gives them something to justify it. Yes, they have to spend some on research to justify that, but the tax take far outweighs the expense.

Of course, companies have the reverse agenda, but they have a couple of simple options. If you pollute a lot, move to a country (or relocate manufacturing) that doesn't care of doesn't particularly tax according to pollution...say China for instance. Or, simply charge the customer more and blame climate change/taxes/the government etc.etc. Either way, win win. It's interesting that the greatest reduction in CO2 emissions in the USA has come about in the last decade and is largely due to their use of shale gas!!

Generally speaking, when you don't actually know what's happening with any degree of certainly and/or the effects of such change, you shouldn't take a radical approach in any direction. You shouldn't go hell for leather against climate change, tax the population to death and cripple yourself and your country in an attempt to stop something which may not exist, or be preventable. Similarly, you shouldn't totally ignore it and do nothing either. What you do is keep going, implementing changes as you can where it is practical. Should we be encouraging recycling and stuff like that? Of course. Should we be encouraging people to drive less? Of course, for lots of reasons. Should we be building wind farms? No. They are useless, require massive subsidies and are actually very emissions expensive to build. On top of that, they're very, very unrealiable. In fact, in this country, wind farms tend to produce nothing when we need it most...i.e. during extremely cold spells in winter which normally come with a calm.

It's anticipated that 15% of your energy bills is now made up of subsidies for 'climate change' and energy saving based technologies, like windfarms, solar PV etc.etc. This is silly. None of these technologies is particularly reliable and/or cost effective and/or efficient. Let's use that money (if we have to pay it) on something potentially sensible. e.g. wave and tidal power. They were pretty much ignored for years in the rush to wind power, yet are far more suited. They are predictable, reliable and hydraulic produces far more power than pneumatic. Rather than rush to wind, we should have waited a decade, perfected these other technologies and deployed them. We'd be in a much better position now.

Re: I see you missed out the important bits

"That's the point, Nobody knows for sure if anything was ever taken. I know it's nice to play the Sony hate game and pretend it's a given that there was. However nothing has ever surfaced, no increases in fraud as a result, no mass hacking as a result of reuse of logins/passwords/DOB The problem is, there is just no way of proving that 100%, so Sony have to assume they did (even thou they almost certainly didn't)."

I think you're missing the point here. Our silly legal system generally bases the penalty on what happens rather than what could have. The fact that the data was or was not used fraudulently is actually irrelevant. The important part is that Sony took negligent care of your data. For example. If I paid you to look after my home whilst I was on holiday and came home to find all the windows and doors open, I'm likely to be somewhat p**sed. If all the contents are missing, I'll be even more p**sed. However, even if the contents are untouched, I'll still be heavily p**sed, just relieved that you/I got away with it. The crime is leaving the windows and doors open. Whether the stuff is nicked or not probably comes down to pure luck.

Similarly, if someone falls asleep at the wheel and crashes into a field, he'll probably face a bigger insurance premium etc., but that's all. Police are likely not to even be involved. However, if the same person sell asleep at a different place and crashed into a crowd of people killing several, they'd probably end up in jail etc.etc. However, the crime is falling asleep. Whether you kill anyone or get away with it is pure luck.

Therefore, Sony are guilty of the crime of negligently storing your information and making it easily available for people to steal. Whether someone does or does not could well be down to pure luck. In other words, the outcome is not really relevant in many cases to the size and magnitude of the crime. The outcome is often unpredictable, very different for the same crime, but the penalty should be the same for both. Why should someone face a smaller penalty simply because they got lucky?

Re: What really happened?

That's the kind of nonsense law you get when you allow the beneficiaries to create the law and fines. In most places, this would be called a conflict of interest, but not the good old USA. Not that the UK is that far behind really and many other countries seem to be following the same route.

How can it be $8-50k per MP3? Stupid money. The only purpose that kind of fine can have is not restitution, but ensuring the person is f**ked for their entire life.

Re: @Invidious Aardvark

"Look: Like it or not, people who actually work in the legal profession with actual law degrees are going to have a very good attempt at nicking Dotlard (yes: It's childish, but frankly if I wanted anything less than childishness, I wouldn't get my IT news from El Reg) for what he's doing and going to be doing. We will see just how well he gets away with it when he invariably gets taken to court. Until then both of our legal theories are just the idle speculation of people who don't actually get paid to prosecute people."

Yep, you're right. The best legal minds in several countries, some governments and law enforcement agencies have already had one go and made such a good attempt at it. After all; they got him and can get him again. The only problem is; they didn't get him. So far they have shut him down, but the judicial system has now declared pretty much everything they did illegal and even opened the opportunity for him to sue for damages, probably running into hundreds of millions, maybe even a billion. That's going to hurt. So, the legal profession and best legal minds so far have dismally failed. They have even managed to make him into a good guy in the minds of a good few people.

"No, I'm conflating a history of running sites blatantly used for illegal fire sharing with a desire to run another website used for illegal file sharing. Once again: Prosecution services aren't morons."

So, what you're saying is 'once a crim, always a crim'. Legal systems have lots of safeguards to prevent exactly this. Otherwise, someone up on a burglary charge would simply have their previous rap sheet of similar offences and be found guilty without any evidence at all. After all, they've done it before!!

Re: The Law is an Ass and always Falters and Fails against Advanced Intelligence

@Psyx.

I think the evidence is all around. Basically, judges get 'perks' of one form or another from various industries. Politicians (who 'craft' the laws) get 'election funds' etc. from the same sorts of industries. Lawyers get their money from various industries. The better paid the lawyer, the more chance you have in court generally. So, all in all, it pretty much looks like the politicians are in hock to certain businesses and make laws appropriately, the judges are in hock as well, and the businesses in question can afford the best lawyers and therefore 'buy' the law that way.

You only have to look at where politicians 'election' funds come from and evidence like that to see how the money is flowing and what it's buying. All with a veneer of legitimacy.

I actually like what Dot Com is doing as it is playing the politicians, courts and laws at their own games. He is creating a veneer over his business to hide any dodgy dealings that may be going on (not saying there are dodgy dealings, just that there could be). This is exactly the same thing that politicians etc. do with their 'incomes'.

Re: @Invidious Aardvark

"Which is pretty easy. And it's not likely to be particularly difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the new site's admins know that it's being used for illegal purposes." (Psyx)

If this were the case, then the owners of Google and many other websites would already be in prison. Maybe DotCom knows it will be used for illegal purposes, but Google is already used for illegal purposes as well (and so are many, many other websites), but I don't see their owners running scared.

Just because you KNOW your website COULD be used for illegal activities does not make you complicit in these activities and guilty of breaking any law. You have to be shown to have KNOWN and ACTIVELY aided in the criminal enterprise. Simply providing a service that is used both legally and illegally does not qualify in this. Otherwise, every car dealer would be guilty as they must KNOW that sometimes their cars are used in armed robberies?