mmt

52 ms·

421.
by mmt 8y ago
> a QDR Infiniband interconnect (~1μs latency, 40GB bandwidth) This is the key aspect of actual HPC clusters that appears to be missing from the pretenders. Some of the sibling comments point out that these scaled-down versions can be us
422.
by mmt 8y ago
I didn't make any specific cost estimate, merely stating "some". I'll grant that $1.50 is actually "none" iff it's a negligible fraction of that worker's monthly earnings. With "wages low skill
423.
by mmt 8y ago
To be fair, the parent did specify scaling "out" and went on to claim other benefits of a distributed architecture, which are not even unique to that architecture [1]. Of course, that comment's definition of "single mach
424.
by mmt 8y ago
That means it wouldn't outright prevent the behavior, but it would add some cost and friction. That could reduce the sheer volume of the problem to make it worth it. Maybe even not blocking them outright but just rate-limiting would pr
425.
by mmt 8y ago
> has bought ineffective products like eye cream based on five-star reviews, including some that appeared fake. Now she only looks at two-, three- and four-star reviews when she shops on Amazon. My strategy has always been to read the 1-
426.
by mmt 8y ago
> You're thinking about it too hard. Mostly, I'm trying to determine if your assertion was a speculation based on, say, evidence (either from NYS previous behavior or from another jurisdiction), or strictly your intuition or gu
427.
by mmt 8y ago
No, it does not, unless you're asserting that India and/or Thailand have comparable regulatory structures for utilities, other than the one detail of which ISPs are permitted on poles. To whit, I believe you're presenting a f
428.
by mmt 8y ago
> Is it necessarily inapplicable? You could write a Python program that uses file-based locking, despite that Python threads don't map to kernel threads, no? Sure, but what would be the point? I'm looking for legitimate motivat
429.
by mmt 8y ago
The article mentions: > Some NIH will give your best staff something to really get their teeth into. A chance to create. A chance to contribute something original. An incentive to remain at your company. Although it's not saying fun
430.
by mmt 8y ago
> I, for one, love asking an honest-to-god question on a potentially contentious topic and then watching my score bounce up and down as folks ascribe intent to the question. Personally, I don't love that one bit [1], so if I'm
431.
by mmt 8y ago
> It's really hard to get enthusiastic about contributing to it when the data is just abysmal here. Be careful what you wish for. Once there's enough pre-existing data, or many contributors actively adding it, you'll have
432.
by mmt 8y ago
> One item that confuses me is the community-based editing which lends me to not wanting to touch it out of fear I'll cross someone (like Wikipedia). This is what drove me away 7 years ago (actually crossing someone, not just the fe
433.
by mmt 8y ago
> New York isn't about to let every ISP in the nation run independent lines over all of the poles in the state. Why not? I would expect the barrier to entry there to be the expense of doing so, not regulatory refusal. It makes sense
434.
by mmt 8y ago
To be fair, my read of this article suggests that what it calls "Sysadmin" was, at the time, called "Network admin" and tended to include a significant helpdesk component. What I remember being called "sysadmin&quot
435.
by mmt 8y ago
> I wonder how to get more people involved, and excited, about OSM? How do we make it the Wikipedia of digital maps? This seems to be the general sentiment of the OSM community, without evidence that merely adding more people will yield
436.
by mmt 8y ago
After trying a couple of the other "internet" thermostats (not Nest, though, that was too obviously creepy), I ended up springing for a Proliphix IMT550c, which I had to wait for a while to show up on eBay, since they stopped sell
437.
by mmt 8y ago
(from the last "shower"): > I'm guessing their servers are 100k each? No basis for that guess though. Seems strange to make the guess without basis then says so.. except that it's suspiciously in the right OOM. Perhap
438.
by mmt 8y ago
> i am talking about bare metal, but dynamic hardware resources would require some sort of virtualization This is a bit confusing, as "bare metal" is usually used as a contrast to virtualization, although it I suppose it could
439.
by mmt 8y ago
> Bandwidth and hardware prices today should make it possible to just be charged as you use it. I'm not sure how you get one from the other. Assuming you mean a pay-as-you-use scheme that merely charges a modest premium over the tra
440.
SRE vs. DevOps: Any Common Ground?(caylent.com)
1 points by mmt 8y ago|0 comments
441.
by mmt 8y ago
One thing I wonder is if a downturn, or even just increased caution in anticipation of one, will put the brakes on the trend among startups that I characterize as "cloud at all costs". Perhaps if the VC spigots shut off or even se
442.
by mmt 8y ago
> Strictly speaking you're right, it's not really about kernel threads. I'm not particularly interested in being right or wrong, but, rather, improving understanding. The reason I made the (strict) distinction was that t
443.
by mmt 8y ago
> I'm objecting to the idea of calling it "ready to standardize". Oh, indeed, that's a distinctly different topic than has been focused on in the rest of the thread. The upthread indictment of the process is quite on
444.
by mmt 8y ago
> also completely unacceptable for a standard. [...] > It's completely okay that they wrote this code, as a "version 0.2". But there's no excuse for presenting it as finished code, with reasonable semantics. It&#x2
445.
by mmt 8y ago
> Well, then I probably don't care? I care whether it was a bad idea, not whether it was a bad idea coming from a bad philosophy or a bad idea standing on its own. If your goal is to prevent such a "bad idea" in the future
446.
by mmt 8y ago
I'm not sure you actually understand my position, which has nothing to do with which philosophy is "right" or "better", but, rather, that the one you seem to object to so strenuously on moral grounds, both existed a
447.
by mmt 8y ago
> Are you saying that the only reason people would want threading capabilities is to exploit multicore/multiprocessor architectures? That's exactly what I was saying, though, specifically, kernel threading support. > Having
448.
by mmt 8y ago
That's the first design-related documentation I've seen presented, so thank you. However, it's merely an indictment of the POSIX standards process and sheds no light on why the AT&T implementation was the way it was in th
449.
by mmt 8y ago
I wasn't asserting that they were pervasive or even universal (in the Unix universe). Perhaps I'm missing your point about dbm, unless it's just that libraries existed, even long ago, that happened to open files. That doesn&#
450.
by mmt 8y ago
> That's just bad engineering. "Seems unlikely, therefore we ignore it" is essentially how you create broken corner cases that result in unreliable systems, i.e., braindead. I can only assume, then, that your "simple&

More ›